Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 4 March	6 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood Estates, Arizona

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

A suburban neighborhood of Prescott, it has a homeowner's association but I couldn't find any evidence of independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reason:

Confusing format for an AfD Unsure how to consider my !vote for each so I separated them.

Delete Wildwood fails our notability requirments. Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deering Park Estates, Arizona is a populated place. Passes WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both are subdivisions/housing developments that lack significant coverage. The latter appears to also be called "Dearing Park": [1][2]. All newspaper results for either spelling are real estate classifieds like [3] and [4]. Reywas92^Talk 06:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - No sign of significant coverage; although people live there, subdivisions are nothing more than administrative designations and do not form their own independent "populated places". –dlthewave ☎ 20:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Zaccala

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

Does not pass neither WP:GNG nor WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not supposed to be deleted as It the article of U-20 footballer and was one of the requested articles.SHISHIR DUA (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SHISHIR DUA: U-20 football isn't enough: he has to have debuted in the senior national team per WP:NFOOTY. Also, it being a requested article doesn't change anything. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The9Man | (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkiya Engineering College, Mainpuri

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

No references to identify the notability or authenticity. It claimed to be a constituent of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, however, the website of the university (https://aktu.ac.in/) doesn't mention this college. The9Man | (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I went ahead and did some further research in detail and found that the university mentioned this college in one of it is subpages (https://erp.aktu.ac.in/WebPages/KYC/CollegeDetailedInformation.aspx?Inst=840). Withdrawing this AfD. - The9Man | (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 22:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Gift for Zooter

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

Nominating on the heels of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Night Before Zipsmas (Jungle Junction). Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Night Before Zipsmas (Jungle Junction)

Lack of notability, no third party sources, fancraft. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much like the other AFD mentioned in the nom, there are no sources indicating this episode is independently notable, and its use as a Redirect is extremely dubious. Rorshacma (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Jungle Junction. Does not seem to warrant a stand-alone article in light of WP:NMEDIA and related. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Osmanoğlu family. Izno (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selim Süleyman Osmanoğlu

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

Previous related AFD which closed with "Merge [this article and many others in a list] to Osmanoğlu family:

For the sake of completeness:

nothing notable per guidelines, poor article consisting of 90% genealogical information and the same irrelevant "Resurgence of interest in the Ottoman dynasty" section as in the two preceding articles. It was created by the same user (as what appears to have been an enthusiastic series of vanity edits?), and was, on 11 August 2011, redirected to Osmanoğlu family based on decision/ precedent at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orhan_Murad_Osmano%C4%9Flu, unilaterally reversed by user 93.108.251.207 on 6 July 2013, with no evidence that such was agreed upon, followed by a few minor edits that, again, failed to prove notability per guidelines. Redirect to Osmanoglu subsequently restored by user StudiesWorld on 3 May 2019, and that again removed, by user 2001:818:d958:3200:dcbb:c0dd:bd99:5c77 (the same individual as removed the redirect on the above Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu article). This article follows the exact same format: too-extensive genealogical detail, the repeated "Resurgence of interest in the Ottoman dynasty" section, nothing on the actual individual save (completely unsourced and at any rate not evidence of notability): "Selim Süleyman holds a Degree in Business and Economics from Kingston University, in London, Greater London, Middlesex, and is a Fellow of the Chartered Insurance Institute, a Chartered Insurance Broker and a Fellow of the Institute of Risk Management and has had a career in the Insurance industry in the City of London and is now employed by the multinational insurance brokers AON in Muscat, Oman." Thanks for your assistance (and with full appreciation that this runs the risk of becoming repetitive! Fortunately this is the last of these siblings.)78.144.65.61 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep history but redirect and lock per outcome of previous AFD in 2011. The redirect of 16 August 2011 was undone on 6 July 2013. It was redirected again on 3 May 2013 and undone with some changes on 9 June 2019. There have been significant changes since 2011, so "speedy deletion as re-creation of material deleted as the result of a deletion discussion" doesn't even apply in spirit (it doesn't apply by the letter to redirects anyway, unless the revisions themselves were deleted). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Osmanoğlu family and lock. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Osmanoğlu family. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion without a merge, as the content is generally regarded as trivial. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of Dedham, Massachusetts, in television and film

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

I have the distinct impression that someone has tried to turn Wikipedia into Dedhampedia. This is one of 6, yes 6, articles on the history of Dedham. Dedham is a place of less than 25,000 people. That means it has less than a quarter the population of Provo, Utah. Yet Provo does not merit a seperate article. Provo is the center of its metro area, Dedham is a suburb of Boston. Boston only merits one article. Provo has been not just the place where many films were created, but it has been the intentional setting of a few films (such as Sons of Provo) and some scenes of The Other Side of Heaven. To me at least the intended setting is more important than the location of filming. Things get worse. San Francisco and New York City are the US locations with the most films set there, but there is no evidence that either merit an article like this. Add to this it is just a mass of trivia, many of the citiations are to non-reliable sources, and there is nothing showing this topic is notable. This Dedhamania has reached levels of absurdity. The fact that this page has existed for nearly 13 years just shows the negative results of Wikipedia having focused more on growth than quality. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If that's the best argument John has, I think the answer is to create an article on the history of film in Provo, not delete the article about Dedham. --21:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- the above unsigned statement is from the disruptive editor who created this article and so many others of our absurdly high number of articles on Dedham. It is a classic example of his trying to muddle the waters and avoid the real issue. The real issue is that this article is built on non-reliable sources, is a collection of trivia, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that this is in any way, shape, means or form a notable topic meriting encyclopedic coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, I mistakenly only put three tildes instead of four. It was a typo, not an attempt to obfuscate. As such, I would appreciate a little a little good faith. If the consensus is that this article should be deleted, then so be it. I don't think the tone you are taking here and elsewhere is helpful, however. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Absolutely no need for a stand-alone article on this topic, a lot of this content would likely be challenged as indiscriminate even in a small section within the Dedham article. While some of the content is reliably sourced, this is essentially a list of mostly unrelated popular culture references - so possible SYNTH issues. There's no indication that these unrelated items connect to form a cohesive topic. Hog Farm (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hog Farm. Could be condensed to three sentences in the article on the town. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as illustrated above by Hog Farm. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is getting into INDISCRIMINATE territory. Some of this can be merged to the main town article. Not sure the town deserves as many "history" articles, a single "History of Dedham, Massachusetts" may be enough. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ per finding the following:

Hollywood Comes To The Norfolk Registry of Deeds
Dedham: Historic and Heroic Tales from Shiretown, which mentions several films

Regardless, the content should be reduced to only secondary sources. That means no citing IMDb or filming-location websites. If there is very little content after such a culling, it should be merged to Dedham, Massachusetts. Pinging Hog Farm, GPL93, and Editorofthewiki to see what they think. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't change my mind. It doesn't surprise me that several films have been made here, but this can get a one paragraph blurb on the main article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. Thanks for replying. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sourcing supports the need for a standalone article. A section in the town's article is more appropriate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dedham, Massachusetts. Slugger O'Toole can ping me if they would like assistance in putting together the merged content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, I would be very glad for the help. Would you like to take a crack at drafting something? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dedham, Massachusetts: Per Eddy and Hog Farm. Better move most (if not all) of the contents there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I trimmed the content as seen here. The sources I listed above have not been included yet. I feel like the remaining content could be condensed into a decent paragraph that could then be merged to the main article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Less a decent paragraph than a sentence, say. Are there any significant movies out there about Dedham? Ravenswing 00:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seriously? Dedham is not a giant metropolis with national or international scope: it doesn't even crack the top ten in population in its county. I'm opposed to a merge, because the notion that anyone is likely to search for the film history of Dedham is cockeyed. INDISCRIMINATE kicks in with the long list of movies that claim to have been "filmed in Dedham," based largely on IMDB umbrella cites of filming locations, where reading the sources reveals that Dedham was one of several locations ... and for all we know filming consisted of two or three stock shots. While such careless editing is not a prima facie deletion ground, it's sure nothing to bolster retaining the article. Certainly there is no sense that multiple reliable sources give significant coverage to the concept of the film history of this small town.
Given some other questionable Dedham-based articles (I remember the Enos Foord AfD well), JPL's "Dedhampedia" charge isn't offbase. Ravenswing 00:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned a couple of sources above that provide significant coverage and removed the IMDb-related items plus similar ones. I assume you don't support the deletion of Dedham, Massachusetts and would be okay with a paragraph about films in Dedham there. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Dedham should be kept, but I don't think that this should have very much space in that article. A film being written about a subject - That's important. A film being primarily filmed in a city - Maybe important, depends on the film. Part of a film being filmed in a city - not really important. I think this content can be covered in a solid two sentences at the Dedham article. Hog Farm (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, one would do it. "Several Hollywood movies and TV shows have used Dedham as filming locations, including X, Y and Z." X/Y/Z being films with significant footage shot in Dedham (and that being supported by reliable citations), as opposed to a movie being shot in Greater Boston that used Dedham locations for a couple five-second stock shots. Ravenswing 18:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After reviewing #3 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which didn't exist at the time this article was created, I now change my vote to merge with the main article. As an Inclusionist, I hate to see encyclopedic information get cut, but agree that is the better place for it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not encyclopedic information. This is disconnected trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the films mentioned are not notable. In addition, in a few cases such as Civil Action, Dedham was one of about 5 metro-Boston cities where filming took place. In the case of the recent film titled Detroit, does it matter what particular courthouse was used in the filming. To us Detroiters the outrage was that someone made an allegedly historical film about events in Detroit but did not care enough for our city to spend the deveopment funds for the film in our city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have already seen strawman attacks on those of us who want some restraint in Dedhammania. Norfolk County has Quincy with over 3 times the population of Dedham and Weymouth with over twice the population. To give another example of what this article produces, even after it has been trimmed a little, The Judge (2014 film) was shot in at least 7 places in Massachusetts and also in Pennsylvania, and is mainly set in a fictional place in Indiana.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We have already seen strawman attacks on those of us who want some restraint in Dedhammania." This seems like attacking while complaining about being attacked. A more professional conduct could be had here. WP:5P says, "Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." As long as Dedham-related content follows policies and guidelines, there's nothing wrong with it. One can assume good faith and simply look at the facts on the ground and provide an assessment as to how such content should be packaged. The simple fact is that there is not much of a space on Wikipedia for the overlap of localities and films. Even List of films set in New York City is an unreferenced list article with nothing prose-based to share. Dedham certainly is a lot smaller, but its scale is ultimately irrelevant if the coverage does exist. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 6 break out articles for the history of Dedham. That is jut plain absurd. There is not sustained, indepth, indepdent reliable source coverage to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect trivia which fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. b uidhe 19:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ademola Kuti

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

Does not pass either WP:GNG nor WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL; claims he played numerous first-team games not supported by this. Giant Snowman 11:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would even go on to say that it's a hoax page. Two sources are Transfermarkt (unreliable), and I have the impression that the other two are fake websites, used with the intent to "mask" deceitful articles. Notice how both use exactly the same (low-res) image of Maradona... a coincidence? Also, Soccerway's individual pages for the four teams in the infobox don't show the player there (e.g. Fujairah in 2018/19). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable article which is a likely hoax. Jogurney (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pilis problem

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

Reviewed as a new page reviewer. IMO there is no suitable Wikipedia topic here, it's apparently about some aspect being debated. And even that is not explained. There is a January tag that said it is in the process of being translated from somewhere else but no activity since then. The editor who created this is both blocked and retired. Suggest deleting. At best an unsuccessful half-done translation with no further activity. It can be translated at a later date if appropriate. North8000 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the original Hungarian page, it appears to be an unfinished WP:FRINGE page there as well that was written by the blocked person translating it into English. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article is in itself a fringe idea. It's true that there are various branches of Neopaganism in Hungary, to which it is related, and which as a set of religious, esoteric, or pseudohistorical beliefs are popular enough to be notable. It's possible to describe and discuss the existence and social significance of these beliefs as such, see this academic paper for example: From Attila to the Heart Chakra - Postmodern pilgrimages. However, framing it as a "problem" or "dispute" about the actual veracity of the beliefs in established scholarship does not adhere to WP:NPOV and is a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

There were problems with this now-blocked user adding fringe and discredited theories in other articles, with explanations like "I don't claim these things are definitely true, but they're disputed, and readers should know about them so they can decide for themselves". The article from the Hungarian Wikipedia that it says it's being translated from was also written almost entirely by him. It should be deleted from there too. There's also some cleanup needed of similar material about the "dispute" he added in Dobogó-kő § Pilis problem and other articles that link to this one. --IamNotU (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed material and links from the various other articles, per WP:FRINGE; this article is now an orphan. --IamNotU (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator, per reasons given there. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the original article in hu.wikipedia, it appears this might merit a few sentences or a paragraph in a related article (e.g., History of Hungary or Neopaganism in Hungary), but there isn't enough material to justify a separate article. And trusting the nominator's statement that this falls under WP:FRINGE, this likely fails the notability requirement. -- llywrch (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, while I removed Kapeter77's fringe and pseudohistorical claims from Dobogókő, I left a sentence that had been in the article for several years previously along with citations of a couple of academic papers about the adherents, including the one I linked to above. As with subjects like the existence of Noah's Ark or energy healing, just because the beliefs are rejected by science, doesn't mean they aren't notable, and there may be enough material for a good article. But we never present it as a "dispute" in Wikipedia's voice, which is the premise of this article right down to the title. --IamNotU (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, and the nominator, I didn't indicate fringe, my assessment is that there is not even a coherently described topic, not even a fringe one. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the article as it stands doesn't describe things in a coherent way. However, it's clear to me what the topic is. See page 11 of the above paper for example. There is a fringe/newage/alternate-history theory that has received some attention (and tourism), that Hungarians are descended from the Huns and were ruled by Atilla, that the major Hungarian cities used to be located somewhere other than where they are now, i.e. in the Pilis hills, that there is a great energy center or chakra in the "Pilis triangle", a configuration of the mountains corresponding to Orion's belt, and so on.

I don't think the problem is that it's not coherently written, in which case it could be stubified, nor that it lacks notability, in which case it could be re-created with enough sources. If we decide to delete it, the reasons will affect whether it or similar articles can be re-created in the future, and under what circumstances. I would be inclined to accept a coherent ethnographical article on this particular aspect of Hungarian culture. But the present article, and any similarly-titled future article that describes it as a disputed but plausible theory, problem, or debate, should be deleted as not adhering to WP:NPOV. In other words, I don't agree with: It can be translated at a later date if appropriate. --IamNotU (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could define a coherent topic and feels that it is wp:notable, I'd be cool with stubifying, even if notability is not proven.North8000 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just in case I wasn't clear, I definitely don't think it should be stubified. It should be deleted and never re-created. If someone wants to, they could define a coherent topic and write an article based on the valid academic research. But that research is about the social phenomenon that people have developed this set of esoteric and pseudohistorical beliefs, how it's bound up with nationalist and neo-religious movements, and so on. There is no serious research whatsoever into whether the claims themselves may be legitimate, despite what this article says. A new article or stub wouldn't use this article's title or premise (because it's not a real "problem"), nor any of its text, and all its citations are unreliable self-published promotion of the fringe theories about "the hidden, mysterious secrets of Pilis, the ancient Hungarian mystery". --IamNotU (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Natalya Murashkina

The result was speedy delete. Article has been speedy-deleted under G5 criteria of CSD and its creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) KartikeyaS (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:GNG. I can't find any specific notability guidelines on water polo, so I am basing my judgement off of a WP:BEFORE resulting in no WP:RSs showing up. An appearance in the 2009 World Aquatics Championships appears minor, but please voice your opinion on this matter. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable water polo player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a fact the article has speed-died under CSD G5. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Iqbal

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noone proposing keep dealt with the point made that "this article up for deletion is about a company, not about a specific product, and so the product reviews/articles listed don't show significant, in-depth coverage since they only comment on the products and make no significant mention of the company". Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presscription

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources - there's coverage of the market, and some brief mentions and press releases. There's coverage in blogs etc, these aren't typically detailed information about the company, and aren't reliable sources (especially considering their all probably being paid for). Overall, fails GNG and NCORP ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is unpaid coverage for the company and products in Forbes, The Independent, and The Telegraph which are all notable publications. Unclear how that fails GNG Jana Fisher - talk 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think it just meets notability with the rather positive reviews (several paragraphs) in Forbes,[5] and The Independent,[6], though I can't see what it says in The Telegraph,[7] (though I can see it's featured in the photo), which are all top-tier sources IMO. I think it barely qualifies but it should be a stub at this point and should be cleansed itself of any COI! —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikimandia, references that establish notability must contain significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The Forbes reference is a review of the product and contains zero information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Independent article fails for the exact same reason. The Telegraph article is little more than a mention-in-passing and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the first source is from Forbes Sites. This is a section that is not covered by general Forbes editorial policy and is often a place for marketing agents. It is roughly equivalent to a company press release in terms of independence and reliability. --MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH to establish notability. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikimandia (talk · contribs). Amisom (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references are about the company or provide significant in-depth coverage on the company. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UFO Music (talk · contribs). 18:37pm, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

UFO Music, per what. You might want to see Wikipedia:What does "per" mean? ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PenulisHantu and HighKing. Not enough significant coverage. Other than the articles listed above, all the other sources I've seen also seem like routine announcements (see again WP:CORPDEPTH). Regardless, I want to reiterate a point made above that this article up for deletion is about a company, not about a specific product, and so the product reviews/articles listed don't show significant, in-depth coverage since they only comment on the products and make no significant mention of the company. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No significant coverage in reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 9010

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

NN and unremarkable subject with an article which is essentially is a heavily undersourced history more suited to a sheet on a plinth in a museum than Wikipedia. Essentially only 2 (3, maybe?) msrginally reliable sources, remainder are the museum where this loco is kept or Facebook shudders..... Cant find any general notability either, most of its history is also documented on the design's main page: Krauss-Maffei ML 4000. Nightfury 11:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Krauss-Maffei ML 4000, doesn't appear to meet GNG, but some of the detail could go into the preservation section of main article. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 15:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have pages on notable steam engines, like Southern Pacific 4449, I do not see why notable diesels like SP 9010 cannot have their own, especially if they are the last of their make and model.TH1980 (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TH1980: How is it notable? Please explain. Being the last of it's make and model doesn't make it instantly notable. Nightfury 08:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, this engine is the last of its kind in the United States of America, and not many of this type were built for the Southern Pacific in the first place. If we can have pages on notable individual steam engines, the same logic can apply to this diesel.TH1980 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page has existed for over eleven years and is C-class. The last of a rare type makes it notable. If it is up-merged to Krauss-Maffei ML 4000, then that page will become unbalanced - over half the resulting page would be about SP 9010. — Iain Bell (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Bell please see my comment above, being the last of its type does not make it notable. Why should this have an article, when its history can easily be elaborated on the model's page? Nightfury 08:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what does “this page has existed for 11 years” have to do with anything? CZ3699 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is the last of it’s type, so it should have its own page, although more sources are needed CZ3699 (talk)
Keep, esp. per User:Iain Bell. As noted, though with variation in grammar, it's the last of its type, and this is a claim of importance. The article states "SP 9010 is the sole surviving ML 4000 C'C' built for use in North America, and the sole surviving mainline diesel-hydraulic locomotive in North America (Several diesel-hydraulic switchers exist in service and in museums)." And the article has numerous sources, establishing Wikipedia-notability. Sure, if people want to call for more sourcing, it can be tagged, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram: Can you elaborate re sources? What is notable? I can see three out of the 8 sources that at least have a slight chance of being reliable... Are we really calling Facebook as a valid source? Nightfury 12:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've not done a before check for sources elsewhere, so I'm not !voting, but the reasoning above doesn't seem to do more than prevent an A7 claim - very few things on wikipedia have inherent notability just from their status and proof of existence, and this subject isn't one. The numerous sources currently present certainly aren't providing notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. "The last of its type" is not a valid argument against notability concerns as per our guidelines and practices. Basically, only reliable sources are a valid argument against notability concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see the sourcing on this is a bit weak, though I did find an article in Trains. However, it's not that terribly different from the rest of Category:Preserved diesel locomotives, most of which have no claim to notability except being preserved. Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the last one in existence,[8] [9] it is clearly notable. Kablammo (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article runs to over 1500 words. The Krauss-Maffei ML 4000 article is 750 words, once you exclude material that is also covered in this article. Merging the two is nonsense; you would end up with an article that is one-third on the type, and two-thirds on the preserved example. That would be a prime candidate for a Request to Split. The status quo is the most sensible option. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy and being the last one of its kind. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus would be more compelling if there were more discussion on the quality of the sources, but there is enough input to call it a keep, for the time being. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fyne (software)

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

After quick WP:BEFORE I believe this article fails WP:GNG. It is one of programming toolkit, but we are not software catalog, nor StackOverflow. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies but I am confused - there are 73 similar toolkits listed in the Widget_toolkits category. The page describes a project that is contemporary with a number of those grouped articles and is in fact in greater use than a number of them. Ajwillia.ms (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand that merely fitting within the existing category of Widget_toolkits is not enough to justify an items inclusion, so I will look at the WP:GNG items directly.
- "Significant coverage": The content of this article was derived from coverage on the internet, in written books and magazines, from podcasts and industry presentations, which I think are all referenced appropriately. For example the "Linux Format" magazine had 4 pages on using the toolkit in their December issue. The "Hands on GUI Application Development in Go" printed book has a chapter dedicated to the topic and uses it as examples of modern toolkit functionality in 3 other chapters. The ChangeLog podcast network reached out to have the episode on Fyne created and have produced follow-on articles (linked) and various items on twitter which are referenced in the article.
- "Reliable": The sources linked comprise books, magazines and podcasts that all hold high editorial integrity. The team behind each will have verified the content before publishing and they can all be readily accessed by interested third parties.
- "Sources": As referenced above the sources come from various different published media, available online and in physical book stores. New mentions of the project are emerging frequently, especially in the conferences and newsletters of the Go language or Linux operating system.
- "Independent of the subject": Whilst I and some of the articles references are related to the project this is a community effort in which many different people are involved and create their own presentations and materials. The inclusion in industry wide magazines (the Linux Format article) as well as programming-language wide newsletters (Go Weekly, also referenced) show that this is a topic of interest far beyond the team involved in it's development.
- "Presumed": In adding content on this topic I looked at how similar (in topic and impact) projects are presented. The growing amount of content on the subject, as well as comparisons with similar Wikipedia entries, led be to believe that this was the correct way to present the topic.

I hope that this helps identify this as a suitable topic for coverage Ajwillia.ms (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't think of any reason this should be marked for deletion. Fyne is relevant and unique and as previously mentioned - UI toolkits have a place on Wikipedia. According to numbers on github and web traffic, as well as prominent open source publications and podcasts, Fyne is often discussed and sought after. I also think Andrew has done a good job of presenting the case of Fyne according to rules and standards that make it clearly not a candidate for deletion. Okratitan (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The listed sources, particularly those in the Bibliography section, suffice for the subject of this article to pass WP:GNG. Modernponderer (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page passes WP:GNG and I believe takes on a very similar style to how pages such as React (web framework) and Go (programming language) are discussed. This goes far beyond just a "software catalog" listing since there is depth explaining its use cases, design, and criticisms from an objective view. Based on this, I do not see a reason that this page should be marked for deletion, especially considering the recent notoriety it has obtained. Alan Cone (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure why this was relisted, except that three of the four Keep !votes above were improperly formatted and didn't have a bold "Keep" at the front. I've fixed the formatting so that it's obvious that there have been four Keep !votes in this discussion. Adding my own Keep for emphasis. :) -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maiia Khromykh

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. This page was already deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maiia Khromykh). Junior skaters are not notable unless they've competed in the final segment at the World Junior Championships or receive "significant coverage" in the media. The references are merely results lists or routine coverage. Hergilei (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current article is not G5 eligible. Also not eligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this moment nothing has changed since the first AfD discussion. Neither WP:NSKATE or WP:GNG is met. However, she is competing at the Junior World Championships that start on March 2 and it's possible she might meet WP:NSKATE criteria number 2 with a good enough performance. I would suggest this discussion be put on hold until after the results of this competition are known. If she qualifies for the free skate she would be WP notable, otherwise she still seems to fail any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She finished 5th in the short program so she easily qualified for the free skating segment of the competition (since the top 24 qualified). That means she meets WP:NSKATE so I am voting to Keep this article. Papaursa (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 17:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Papaursa, meeting WP:NSKATE. Spokoyni (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Wilson (footballer)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL: has only ever played senior matches for non-league teams. Can't find evidence of meeting WP:GNG either, except perhaps for a single short article in Non League Today [10]. YorkshireLad (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject is mentioned in articles but very little substantial articles from reliable sources can be found. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. For now, the subject fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: TOOSOON..... Obviously I do not have a crystal ball, but if at the age of 22 he is playing in the NINTH tier of English football, I would say his chances of making it to the fully professional levels now are extremely slim..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not yet meet football notability. Weather he ever will we do not know, but it looks unlikely he will as a player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaz Mustafizur Rahman

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

Reason North8000 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed as new article patroller. No indication of notability. One sentence of content which says that they served in that parliament and gave birth and death dates. The only reference is an off-line book on a related-but-different topic. North8000 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Electoral seat statistics here show the subject being elected in 1991, re-elected in 1996 and defeated in 2001. AllyD (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of national legislatures are default notable. They are about the only people who are truly default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as a member of a national legislature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I missed the part described by Johnpacklambert when I nominated. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aizil Yazid

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

Doesn't satisfy either WP:GNG nor WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable 16-year-old football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL as he is in a WP:FPL league which could make him eligible on the basis of that but for that now it is way too early for this player to have an article. HawkAussie (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't come close to meeting basic notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian de Suarez d’Aulan

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

no evidence of notability for this particular current representative of an noble house DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nearly unsourced article about an 18 year old student with no claim to notability outside of his family connection. Most of this article, and the unsourced BLP article about his father Patrick de Suarez d'Aulan, consist mainly of rambling, unsourced family history, probably from De Suarez d'Aulan and its doppelganger De Suarez d’Aulan, which were deleted three times between them following a deletion discussion. WP:Articles for deletion/Patrick de Suarez d'Aulan was closed with no consensus.Capewearer (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All information is gathered and summarized from the historical novel " Un fil dans le Tapis, histoire des Suarez d'Aulan ", editions Karthala, Juin 2009, ISBN 978-2-8111-0228-9. The last chapter speaks of the future 12th Marquis, Maximilian. Everything can be fact checked in the novel and it's sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry.Ewood (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED applies in a literal sense here. The article contains hardly any biographical content, much less a credible claim of notability—it's just unsourced family history that was copy-pasted from Patrick de Suarez d'Aulan. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, there's nothing about him that's really worth a page. also - hard agree with henry, the article on his father reads very very messily. i think we should delete that page too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernyeds (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being an heir to displaced royalty is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Being the displaced heir of a cadet family of a deposed royal house is too tenuous a claim to notability for inclusion. He's done nothing, not even philanthropy. Even if everything is true, he's a very common nobleman. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This should not be taken as a prejudice against an article about the founder. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Rathi Group

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

does not show notability according to WP:CORP . Editor has not responded to repeated questions about undeclared paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 09:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but consider rewriting this into an article about the founder; [11] suggests he may be notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Sources are WP:MILL. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At 2500 headcount probably not trivial--96EVkbL.pFt (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOTWEBHOST. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Headcount of employees does not make a company notable. Financial services companies and their employees are by their nature run of the mill, since entry to that job market (as with film producer, DJ, transcription, Realtor, etc.) is shocklingly low. Bearian (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even if Wikipedia:BROADCAST presents a low bar, it clearly does not consider every radio station in existence as notable. No other claim of notability has been presented. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DXAL

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

A7 declined by Espresso Addict on the basis that radio stations are 'usually considered notable'. This is a view not, as far as I can see, supported by WP:BROADCAST or several other A7s that were accepted [12], [13] nor discussions at AFD. However, anyone has the right to refuse a CSD so here we are I suppose. This, like all the other Philippines radio station stubs, has no sources that do anything except demonstrate bare existence. There is not even a claim to notability, let alone the sources to support such a claim. Fails even the quite low standards of WP:BROADCAST and definitely fails WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 13:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 13:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 13:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would agree with Espresso Addict that radio stations are usually considered notable. The station is licensed by the NTC, as per 2019 NTC Listing from FOI. And with at least one external link indicated, the station does exist. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:BROADCAST. I rest my case. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T · ICE CUBE)} 01:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if all the coverage that can be found is that the station exists, then it should be deleted. We need more than directory entries to write an article. b uidhe 06:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even if Wikipedia:BROADCAST presents a low bar, it clearly does not consider every radio station in existence as notable. No other claim of notability has been presented. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYAA

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

A7 declined by Espresso Addict on the basis that radio stations are 'usually considered notable'. This is a view not, as far as I can see, supported by WP:BROADCAST or several other A7s that were accepted [14], [15] nor discussions at AFD. However, anyone has the right to refuse a CSD so here we are I suppose. This, like all the other Philippines radio station stubs, has no sources that do anything except demonstrate bare existence. There is not even a claim to notability, let alone the sources to support such a claim. Fails even the quite low standards of WP:BROADCAST and definitely fails WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 13:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 13:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 13:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would agree with Espresso Addict that radio stations are usually considered notable. The station is licensed by the NTC, as per 2019 NTC Listing from FOI. And with at least one external link indicated, the station does exist. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:BROADCAST. I rest my case. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T · ICE CUBE)} 01:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if all the coverage that can be found is that the station exists, then it should be deleted. We need more than directory entries to write an article. b uidhe 06:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BROADCAST. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eboni Boykin

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

This is a WP:BLP1E for a student. Her claim to fame is that she was a student who overcame adversity and directed a non-notable short film. Sadly, this alone does not make her notable in the context of needing a Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is not news. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was created during the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/155. With that being said however, I still don't believe that directing this short film qualifies the subject under WP:NDIRECTOR, as the film that was directed does not appear to be notable, and thereby the director is also not notable. I thought I should add this because my nominating rationale does not tell the complete story. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. userdude 04:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. In general I think it is WP:TOOSOON for this article to be anything but a stub, and I agree that the short film (for which she was added to the Women In Red redlist) is not notable. So I see the arguments for deletion. However, I think the multiple news articles fulfill WP:BASIC: "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There are several more articles not cited in the entry, such as this one about helping her mother get her GED. I kept things short to stick to the encyclopedic details, but perhaps the article should say more about why her success was notable? (e.g., homeless during school, first in her family to graduate high school, but scored highest on the ACT in the school's history, almost average the double score, and got a full scholarship to an Ivy League university, from which she then successfully graduated.) And/or perhaps it should cite this 2018 article which takes her story as an example of cultural narratives about high-achieving disadvantaged Black students? I especially think the fact that multiple follow-up articles continued to be published between 2012 and 2016 indicates that this is not just WP:ONEEVENT, and that she meets the basic notability criteria. I acknowledge that the article isn't much right now, but I think there's no harm in having a simple stub for now that may grow over time. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 06:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability as a representative of a class of individually non notable individuals in a similar situation is no a concept which makes sense in an encyclopedia Nor does being worthy of becoming notable, nor does being chosen in an edition. DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth reliably-published news stories from multiple sources, over multiple years, that are primarily about her give her a clear pass of WP:GNG. It doesn't matter whether we think she's not the sort of person who should be worthy of becoming notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is definitely a case whereby the individual is not notable enough for an article yet. I want to say though, it looks like she will get an article in the future. Sadly, delete for now. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:TOOSOON. There are so many articles that come out every year during college acceptance season about "so and so" student from "so and so" high school getting into "this many" Ivy League schools. It's a good human interest topic for local coverage but wouldn't say it's notable enough for an article. – BriefEdits (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Has multiple third-party articles focusing on the subject. Meets WP:THREE but I can understand the WP:TOOSOON claims. Snavehunter (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when people are held up primarily as examples of meta analysis this is not a sign of notability. This is even more so when the person is living. This person is a non-notable filmmaker, and the coverage, which is more meta analysis of the coverage of her as opposed to being about her, does not justify an article. If she were dead I might think otherwise, but I think we should avoid reducing living people to examples of large scale phenomenon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If her story was published in one source, or just in passing, I could see the delete arguments, but this has multiple articles that are specifically about her, from 2012 to 2018. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since there's been little consensus I wanted to comment further on my keep vote above. While I think this article will likely be better in the future (and acknowledge that for now, Boykin is only notable for attending Columbia), I think it already clearly meets WP:GNG. She is discussed as an individual, not as a representative of a group (per DGG), though in the article I attempted to contextualize her in a group. Hers is not just the typical admissions-season human-interest puff piece (per BriefEdits), since she received sustained coverage over several years and well beyond her hometown. She is not mostly notable for meta analysis (per John Pack Lambert) -- rather, in addition to the many articles about her personal story (which make her notable), she has been used as a possibly-familiar-to-others example in meta analyses of other topics (showing the impact of her notability). I think the best three sources to illustrate how she meets the GNG are these:

Crouch, Elisa (2016-05-30). "An Ivy League degree in hand, Eboni Boykin tackles the future". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 2020-02-27.
Workneh, Lilly (2013-08-07). "Eboni Boykin: Once homeless, now thrives in Ivy League". TheGrio. Retrieved 2020-02-27.
Starr, Terrell Jermaine (2012-05-28). "GO SISTA! HS Senior Goes From Homeless Shelter To Ivy League". NewsOne. Retrieved 2020-02-27.

The best-written articles about her are the ones by Crouch, who followed Boykin's story with multiple articles from 2012 to 2016, but Crouch is not the only person doing reporting on Boykin. These three articles consist of extended original reporting exclusively about Boykin (and mention further TV coverage) by independent reliable sources. What they cover may not seem exciting, but I think David Eppstein is right: she clearly does pass the notability criteria, whether or not one thinks her story ought to be notable. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 07:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Max Korzh

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. --176.15.154.174 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 19:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as am not familiar with Russian sources of which there are many in the article but there are pointers that he passes several criteria of WP:NMUSIC with extensive touring in Eastern Europe and the USA and that he has won a number of awards from Muz-TV a Russian national music station, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass any of our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist, but I'm not convinced there's a consensus yet. This will wind up a no consensus unless more editors weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of an insufficient rationale for delete. I used Google Translate to translate some of the sources used in the article, and they appear to be significant coverage:

It's possible that someone who knows the Russian music press would say that these sources are bad for some reason that I don't know, but I would need more of an explanation than "fails WP:ARTIST" and "does not pass any of our inclusion criteria". -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The three translated sources are two trivial mentions about concerts, and an interview. I can't assess their reliability. Bearian (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prolintas

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

no claim to notability as unreferenced Tknifton (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. b uidhe 02:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional information (albeit from a COI account) has been added since this AFD listing, relisting in case this affects the brief consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at Malaysian sources, it looks it could meet notability criteria. I am not really sure. However, it might be worth WP:TNT anyway. --MarioGom (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrawal (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative Ranks of Apartheid States in Southern Africa

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

There are no sources cited for this article, which appears to be essentially an unnecessary content fork. "Apartheid States in Southern Africa" is being used to refer to South Africa, South West Africa, and the Bantustans under their apartheid (e.g. South African white) regimes. This list excludes Rhodesia. No source has been provided to demonstrate the significance of tying together these states/territories military insignia of this time period. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Upon the provision of new sources demonstrating this article's notability, I withdraw my deletion nomination. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced list that probably fails LISTN. b uidhe 05:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a grouping of states that seems to have been put together by the article creator. Mccapra (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic lacks notability.--Staberinde (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something like Rank insignia of South African Bantustans. These states and their rank insignia existed. Agree that it needs sourcing but the topic is notable. Someone somewhere may want to know about the military ranks of Venda Gbawden (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs sourcing but clearly notable topic. The suggestion that these states aren't linked is ludicrous. Maybe do some research first? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, it does seem logical to group the military insignia of all these states/territories' troops together, but sourcing (or the lack thereof) doesn't support making the comparison. This is the closest source I've found to supporting this comparative topic, and it appears to be a list of badges, not a comparison of ranks. -Indy beetle (talk)
  - You do know that these states were all set up by South Africa and were not recognised by the rest of the world? How on earth does that not support them being related? Of course they are. It's blatantly obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I do know they were all related to the apartheid regime, but that's not the same as establishing that a comparative list of different military ranks (since the current article title, which is an MOS violation of title capitalisation, doesn't even specify that this is about military ranks) is notable. If one scrolls down to the bottom of this article to the "References" section, one finds that it is filled with links to blog and forum postings of photographs of South African/South West Africa/Bantustan military officers with zero context ([16][17][18]) or broken links ([19]). Tying together a bunch of photographs as research and calling it proper sourcing is a violation of WP:Synthesis. Thus far it can't even be established that these are the insignia that was worn by the troops as matched with the ranks. I will gladly withdraw my deletion nomination once reliable secondary sources establishing the notability of a list like this are found. So far I have uncovered none aside from Owen's The Military Badges and Insignia of Southern Africa. The "SOUTH AFRICAN ARMY RANKS AND INSIGNIA" academic article by Radburn makes one a few comments of comparison about badges between South Africa and South West Africa (which are helpful), but that's it. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article's title has been changed. Citations have been added to published books about how the military ranks used by the entities are related, through South Africa controlling various aspects of the Bantustan Defence Forces, and the SWATF being an auxiliary to the SADF. Links to uniforminsignia.org have been added for SWATF, Bophuthatswana, Transkkei, and the apartheid South African Army. Uniforminsignia.org is used as a citation for military ranks on near all pages about military rank systems, so this brings the article in question in line with other similar articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Cdjp1: That's encouraging enough to erase my concerns about notability, though I must say uniforminsignia.org strikes me as more of an enthusiast run website than a reliable source. I think the academic articles will prove more useful. At any rate, I'll withdraw my deletion nomination.-Indy beetle (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the consensus is to keep and rename this as something like Comparative Military Ranks in Bantustans then the entries about South West Africa will have to be removed. It wasn’t a Bantustan. Mccapra (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It still makes sense to include it for comparison purposes as the "parent" state. In the same way that we tend to include British and American ranks in other rank tables even if they're not directly related for comparison purposes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Source images have been linked in the references section. This page as with other comparative rank pages is collecting related rank systems together to make comparison easily visable. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A published article referring to various members of the TBVC Defence Forces including their ranks, at the following archive link [20], has been added as a reference. External links to uniforminsignia.org for Bophuthatswana, Transkei, South West Africa, and South Africa, in line with other articles on military ranks. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Don't see how the subject is not notable. Azuredivay (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a lack of consensus on how the existing coverage should be judged. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Conservatives of Texas

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

Except for a couple of racist and bone-headed ideas they had in 2013 that made the news, momentarily, what is noteworthy about this group and how does it pass GNG? All I can find is either very local, nothing more than announcement, or a passing mention that this or that person had something to do with them. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a newspaper article from 2003, cited in the appendix of a book, and here is a note about their bake sale. If this group were really notable they'd have left a larger mark in their forty years. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 22:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 22:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ping everyone from first AFD: @SarekOfVulcan, Blueboar, Theseus1776, A F K When Needed, Carrite, Binksternet, CWenger, RightCowLeftCoast, Haymaker, Blaxthos, Joe Decker, Lionelt, Jenks24, SeanNovack, Monty845, Dream Focus, FitzColinGerald, BabbaQ, Collect, Dthomsen8, NYyankees51, Qrsdogg, Kansan, Anarchangel, Jjrj24, and Mark Shaw: ミラ P 22:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My !vote from the previous AfD still stands: the group has been discussed in several sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What's funny, Binksternet, is that that's not actually true: they've been mentioned, not discussed. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That newspaper article reprinted in the appendix of a book gets into some depth. The Texas Alcalde magazine keeps coming back to YCT and its representatives in various paragraphs on pages 7, 9, 10 and 11. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a pass of GNG. Notability is not temporary. If this article needs to be improved, improve it. Carrite (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite, the last time this came up you actually had nothing more to offer than the claim "it's notable" and three links to local chapters--which, as you of course know, means nothing. I am still waiting on some actual evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This already ran through AFD and closed as a Keep. Why are we relitigating this, other than for the reason of WP:IDONTLIKEIT??? Notability is not temporary and this matter has already been resolved. Carrite (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Look through the previous AFD. See how many times the New York Times covered them? Click on any of them, or read through all the other sources covering them. They still pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 00:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, have you actually read any of those articles? Have you noticed that none of them actually cover this group? Is it not a bit of a surprise that none of them have the group's name in the title? Drmies (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - They cover their activities, that's coverage of them. Dream Focus 18:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No they don't, Dream Focus. Please read the actual articles. There isn't a single one that has anything more than "such and such was a member of YCT", with an occasional one going "YCT supported this or that". Just for clarity's sake, and the people in the back: there isn't a single source in the NYT, or one brought up in the old AfD, or one in the current article, that has anything about the group's history, who founded it, what it tries to accomplish, how successful it is, how many members it has, or what it does besides an occasional stupidity that makes the local news or the HuffPo. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - [21] has their local chapter's leader talking to them, rather long article there. Significant coverage in a reliable source. Clicking the link at the top of the AFD for a search in Wikipedia reliable source [22] shows their activities get a lot of coverage. I read through some coverage they have received for various things over the years and am convinced this proves them notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 22:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, @Miraclepine: thanks for the notice. The organization continues to receive significant coverage, such as this article in 2018, the appendix provided by Drmies above, a significant amount of coverage in the book American Government: Continuity and Change, 2006 Texas Edition, as well as significant mentions in news articles such as this one published by KEYE, and this one published by The Dallas Morning News. While the editing community of Wikipedia may change, regardless of the subject's political alignment, if an editor where to evaluate the subject on its merits I am of the opinion that looking upon the reliable sources which give significant coverage to the subject, the subject in question of this AfD will be found to pass WP:ORG & WP:GNG. Nothing has changed since the last AfD in 2011, which multiple editors sited multiple reliable sources to reach consensus that the subject of this current AfD is notable (and even if some those reliable sources cited in the previous AfD are no longer accessible due to link rot, they are still relevant per WP:OFFLINE).--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YCT focuses on state politics. Check places like the Texan or Empower Texans for articles I recall several from there. Natedunning95 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Miraclepine, I'm somewhat amused here. You put up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon Griffon (2nd nomination), where you refer to another AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Kulinski (4th nomination), closed by Sandstein as delete--and it seems to me that Sandstein based their close on this comment by SportingFlyer: "That article doesn't count towards WP:GNG since it only name-drops him once, and we require coverage to be significant. But it is reliable, and if you can find a couple more like those which discuss him significantly, that would change the nature of the discussion". All of the mentions in the NYT, which were cited last time, are such mentions. None of the editors who simply say "pass per GNG" seem to have actually read the sources.
But User:RightCowLeftCoast to the rescue--I don't know exactly what they were referring to with what was cited in the previous AfD, because none of that was reliable or significant, and certainly not both. But I'll accept that their citation of American Government: Continuity and Change actually provides what none of the other sources mentioned: some factual details about how and when some club was founded, the kind of information the NYT couldn't be bothered to provide. It's just sad to say the usual "keep per Google hits" leads to such obvious misstatements like "See how many times the New York Times covered them?"--and they didn't actually ever "cover" them. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thanks for the heads-up. I'll ask our source-assessing e x p e r t Praxidicae to assess the sources. ミラ P 02:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be notable. And I am concerned that there might be some unintended bias in this nomination—e.g., "Except for a couple of racist and bone-headed ideas they had..." Dflaw4 (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Please relist this because Drmies' above statement shows that the keep votes don't directly address WP:GNG. ミラ P 23:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources discussed in the prior discussions, so the question here seems to be what it means for a source to provide “significant coverage” of an organization. The nominator argues that we need reliable sources discussing all of the background of this organization — articles that discuss its founding, structure, etc. — or sources solely devoted to describing the organization. While I recognize the concern about verifiability, and while of course we should not be discussing anything in the article that we cannot cite to reliable sources, I don’t think an article must describe all elements of an organization in order to be said to have provided significant coverage of that organization. Moreover, the notability policy makes clear that a source need not be solely devoted to a topic to provide significant coverage. Rather, it need only provide sufficient coverage to meet the general notability requirements. This article seems to meet that standard.TheOther Bob 05:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete At first glance, there are plenty of reliable sources mentioning this organization, so it seems like a pretty clear keep. Looking deeper, however, and I can't find a single source that actually discusses the organization in detail - they're simply quoted in lots of places. If we don't have sufficient sources actually saying what the article topic is, how can we have a legitimate article about it? It seems telling that there's very little sourcing on the article itself, and I'm not sure how a substantial article could be written based on what I've found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nwlaw63 above, and a reversal from my weak keep ~8 years ago. It looks like there is no way to improve this article, as sources about the subject don't exist. Being quoted isn't enough to confer notability. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The late pro-delete contributions indicate that this AFD needs more time to generate a consensus. KaisaL (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not think it is appropriate to ping participants from a discussion that took place 8 years and 11 months ago. If the first AfD ended a few months ago? Maybe. But almost a decade? No. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not have long lasting or significant effect for inclusion as a standalone article. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my own searching, I'm not seeing sufficient WP:RS to pass WP:N. There's plenty of trivial coverage, mostly reports that they endorsed some particular political candidate, and mostly local (Texas) coverage, often in school papers.. I found a few mentions in the NY Times, but just mentions, nothing of any substance. The single substantive news coverage I found was this article in The Washington Times, which I had previously never heard of, but turns out to be a Moonie paper, so it's hard to take seriously. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ami Neta Hobo#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Lipstick

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

There are 10 sources in the article. All of them are related to releasing this song on YouTube. This film song clearly fails WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree There's plenty of reliable sources published in Bangladeshi media, whether or not the song charts, sufficient coverage exists in reliable music sources to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS, while there is overlapping material from these examples, there's enough to satisfy the "reasonably detailed article" standard by criteria Wikipedia:Notability (music) song line no. 3. and Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles line no. 5 — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 05:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Masum Ibn Musa (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whatever claimed by Masum Ibn Musa are not correct.

He claimed that the article passes WP:GNG. The sources are present in the article is not able to pass the article WP:GNG. The lit. translation of the non English sources in the article are Lal Lipstick, song of Ami Neta Hobo is released/will be released. These sources are not enough for passing WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. WP:RS can't make a subject notable all time. See Taimur Ali Khan, who has plenty of coverage for being son of Saif Ali Khan and Kareena Kapoor Khan, is protected now.
His another claim of passing WP:SONG criteria no. 3 is not correct. It was mentioned there "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." It does not mean that each and every duet song is notable. It means that a song can be a subject for standalone wikipedia article if it is released by several notable artists independently.
His last claim that it passes Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles which is not correct as it is for singer, DJs, rappers or other persons not for a song. Even, the criteria is not enough for making the song a standalone article.
Even via google search in both Bengali and English I did not find any reason for this Lal Lipstick can be a standalone article by passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC.

As per WP:NRECORDING and above all Lal Lipstick can be redirected to Ami Neta Hobo.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Soundtrack section of Ami Neta Hobo. Yes there is evidence that this song was released individually, but editors claiming that it received press notice as an item independent of the film are going to have to deliver the goods. Like the nominator, I can find no such evidence. And even if such evidence is found, it can simply be added to the film's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG & WP:NMUSIC. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
provide here why you think that its how fails WP:GNG ? 119.30.41.187 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
see S. M. Nazmus Shakib's comment. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason for deletion , lot of bangladeshi WP:RS newspaper article here. Enough for pass WP:GNG. Who nomination look like a paid editor. Who nominated this article he was create lot on non notable article when someone vote delete that time say Bangladeshi notable published news but now reasons find out why nomination this article its totally irrational.119.30.41.187 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion sorely needs input from uninvolved editors, or it will go to a no consensus. KaisaL (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ami Neta Hobo#Soundtrack, as recommended above by DOOMSDAYER520 and S. M. Nazmus Shakib, for the reasons they outlined. The cited sources are churnalism, media reprints of a couple press releases intended to promote the song and film, not independent of the artists or film producers. There is no information in the song article that isn't, or couldn't be, in the soundtrack section of the film article. Redirection to the film follows the spirit of WP:NSONG's advice to cover the song in the album article rather than creating a stand alone article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Tabar

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacknstock: AfD discussion here Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources already cited show GNG is met. I don't read this as an attack page on her, rather it seems to attack Iranian censorship and lack of civil liberties. b uidhe 17:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I stated on the talk page, I read about Tabar on CNN.com back in October and was a little surprised there was no WP article, particularly when a news search revealed over 700,000 potential sources. Mimahoda had started an AfC draft, so I thought I'd run with that to see if we could develop a useful draft that would be accepted through that process. The article was considered acceptable by AfC reviewer Sulfurboy. It really isn't an attack page, but if someone thinks it unbalanced they are free to edit. Tabar seems to have become notable as an Instagram influencer even though her account was deleted; there are plenty of imitations or fan accounts as testimony to her notability. I'll allow each of you to judge for yourself whether the response of authorities makes the article more or less worthy of inclusion. I don't see an argument for deletion yet. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I typically stay neutral on articles I approve out of AfC, however this is such a strong keep I felt the need to vote. While the page might have some neutrality issues, its not enough to warrant a AfD much less a CSD. I don't see any sort of threat or attack on the page. All claims on the page are also backed by mostly reliable, secondary sources. More than enough coverage to pass WP:BIO and WP:GNG 47.184.8.132 (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. She's only notable in the context of her arrest, and not only that, but her arrest only received attention due to her appearance. Almost all of the pre-October 2019 coverage of her comes from clickbait websites, tabloids, and Sputnik (which is considered generally unreliable). The only source I found which might be reliable is Newsweek, but Newsweek post-2013 is dubious and it's only one article. She's likely to remain a low-profile individual, since she's only widely known for being an Instagram user and her Instagram account has been deleted. And her arrest is not particularly significant. Arrests of Instagram models in Iran are not unusual. The BBC story cited in the article states that she is part of a "long list" of Iranian influencers who have faced legal trouble. Furthermore, there are potential BLP concerns, considering she is no longer a public figure. It would be inappropriate to maintain a permanent article about her just because she took weird pictures of herself when she was a teenager and she got arrested once. Surachit (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep However, I think the multiple news articles fulfill WP:BASIC: "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Idolmm (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be a trend toward keep here, but I will relist to give time for additional editors to participate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sahar Tabar's story should be considered in the context of Forced Confessions in Iran countering female activists. Mimahoda (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she sought and obtained fame, and the regime sought to punish her and two other women for having cosmetic surgery, resulting in a widely-reported court case. That's not merely news, but history. Bearian (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Benda (naval officer)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Reads more like a puff piece as well Gbawden (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes notability requir7ements, based on substantial coverage in multiple WP:RS. Very presentable article too, I was fairly confused as to why it has been nominated. Elizium23 (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a recreation of an article deleted in November 2019. The 2019 access dates on the sources lead me to believe that it's a copy-and-paste of that article, with just two new sources added - which meets the "substantially identical" criterion for speedy deletion under {{Db-repost}}. (Note that of the two sources with a 2020 access date, one is used entirely in places where another citation is present, while the other supports only a single phrase.) The majority of the sources are trivial mentions or routine coverage; most of the article is based on a single "local boy makes good" piece from his small hometown paper. As per the nomination, this fails WP:SOLDIER. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of both, I can tell you that it is substantially the same. There are several new citations, and he is now the commanding officer, not second in command. I thought that would be enough. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said before. Doesn't hold flag rank. Not particularly significant otherwise. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Should not have been recreated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't at all pass notability requirements; there's precisely ONE reliable source supporting notability here. Far from being a "very presentable article," this is a classic example of citation bombing: the aforementioned small hometown weekly is cited thirty nine times, the local community access cable channel is cited fourteen times, and other multiple cites include his college alumni quarterly, the hometown men's club, his small college newspaper, and so on. For pity's sake, there are nearly twice as many cites as sentences in the article!
Beyond that, an important factor in biographical articles is being overlooked: that reliable sources must provide significant coverage of the subject. Fluff pieces in supermarket weeklies where Commander Benda tells elementary school classrooms about the life of Napoleonic Era sailors do not tell us anything about Benda, and therefore do not meet the requirements of the GNG. Ravenswing 12:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing, I understand your opinion, but respectfully disagree. I don't find anything in WP:RS that says local news media are not reliable sources. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slugger O'Toole Indeed, there is not, but you can't both be unaware of consensus and common sense which holds that small town weekly papers are a world of difference from internationally renowned, Pulitzer Prize-winning outlets like the Boston Globe. Ravenswing 23:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Benda (naval officer) which resulted in delete. Because it's gone, I can't see the original article but it looks like a copy to me.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It was pretty much identical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed since the article was deleted in November. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPL93, He is now the commanding officer, not the second in command. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your reasoning the Constitution, while it has certainly played an immensely important role in American naval history, is not a particularly significant command when you look at the current structure of the US Navy. Best GPL93 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93, I understand where you are coming from, and it is true that the Constitution is not going to be out defending Boston Harbor if it is ever invaded. That doesn't mean it isn't a significant command, however. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am becoming suspicious of the attempt to turn this into Dedhamapedia. There have been attempts to somehow make Dedham town clerks default notable, there have been category bombing with the Dedham Society to Prevent horsethivery and trying to connected notable people to it who never even set foot in Dedham. While maybe not quite as bad as the mess we have in Louisiana local politician articles or the mess we have in overcoverage of every mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut, this is one of the particularly American overcoverge danger zones. The fact that this article is being recreated with such blateant disregard for the decision to delete it is also troubling. We may have more coverage of Dedham than Middle-earth, and conisdering how long the article on Barahir existed that is saying something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For example why do we have 4, yes 4, seperate articles on the history of Dedham? History of Boston is just one article. I do not know how this absurdity has developed, but it is absurd. Then there is History of Salt Lake City which begins its "today" section with an event 18 years ago and refers to a "recently" a purchase that was made in 2003, that is 17 years ago. Actually, on further review I was wrong. History of Dedham, Massachusetts is broken up into 6 arrticles. What is this madness? Why is this absurdity? Why do we have History of Dedham, Massachusetts, in television and film when we lack similar articles on New York City and San Francisco, the two most common specific city locations for US set films? What is this madness and why has it come into existence?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not overreacting on Dedham either. This article (at least as a recreation) was created by the same editor who gave us the classic History of Dedham, Massachusetts, in television and film. He also was connected with creating a category for actors from Dedham, a place of 25,000 people in the metro Boston area. He is responsible for much of our glut of Dedham articles. Examples of past articles include Enos Foord, Andrew G. Geishecker. I have to wonder if some other discussions might be better enlightened if we considered what this absurd level of Dedhamite coverage actually gives us.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I contend that local news sources count as WP:RS and there is a significant number of them. Since this article was recreated several new sources have been added, including from the Boston Globe and Boston's Fox TV and NBC affiliates, one of which called him the "face of the US Navy in Boston." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because things seem to have changed since the AFD and WP:GNG seems to be met (again, WP:ROUTINE don't work on people). That said, John Pack Lambert's concerns about Slugger O'Toole that someone has tried to turn Wikipedia into Dedhampedia in another Dedham AFD is worthy of WP:ANI intervention. ミラP 02:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has changed whatsoever. Still a relatively junior officer. Still below flag rank. Still not holding any sort of major command (essentially "commands" a museum ship, whatever its significance in USN history). Still sourced only to local articles about a local boy made good. These are just not significant enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, silly me, I took Slugger O'Toole's comment above to mean that the article's sourcing had been materially improved in the last day. Which it has not, no substantive edits having been made at all. The article continues to be overwhelmingly sourced by small town weeklies such as the Dedham Times and the Ellsworth American (pop. 7,741), the subject's college alumni quarterly, his hometown community cable access channel, and primary sources which cannot count towards notability like Navy base newspapers and the Constitution's website. Ravenswing 18:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject doesn't seem to pass notability requirements. The only source that may meet the requirements is the Boston Globe article on February 29, 2020. The remainder of the references are brief mentions or minor coverage in small local news sources. WP:GNG also mentions that minor news stories may not actually support notability despite their existence as reliable sources. IMO most of the local news coverage is nothing more than minor news stories. The consensus at many AFD’s is local coverage is not enough to establish notability. I can’t think of one BLP that has survived a recent AFD where the majority of references are local news sources without at least a few non-local sources included that meet WP:BASIC. Another concern is the subject fails WP:SOLDIER. Being the current commanding officer of the USS Constitution is not a “Major Command” in the United States Navy. CBS527^Talk 18:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This subject certainly has an important command as it regards US Navy public relations. Based on the coverage I'm seeing during a reasonable search he seems to be an excellent representative of his service branch and of his local community, well-suited for his command. He certainly exists and is verifiable. However, there's no passing GNG here. There's insufficient RS upon which to build a BLP. Failing SNG SOLDIER, there's no presumption of notability. Even the reliable sources which are found appear to be routine local coverage. For now there's very little directly detailing the subject. I would encourage the page creator to draftify this material for now, continue watching and return the page to mainspace ONLY after getting some significant non-local RS if such eventually appear. BusterD (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:ONEEVENT given that Commander Benda's only claim to fame is from his current job commanding a museum ship Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pretty clear neologism without wide usage. The difference between this neologism and others such as Brexit is that those have wide usage, whereas this does not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myco-Industrial Complex

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

Seems to be original research. It claims, without source, that the first use was in January 2020. I can't find any sources for Myco-Industrial Complex and suspect it is a neologism. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just like Brexit, Megxit and myriads of other neologisms in Wikipedia, "Myco-Industrial Complex" IS a neologism. I'm new to creating articles at Wikipedia. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong, and being a neologism is reason for exclusion from Wikipedia... and please explain why some neologisms are acceptable while others are not. Each one at some point was a newly coined word with no references, that served a useful purpose, and so gained in popularity. The word describes something that needs describing in a concise manner, and when I first heard Mr. Johns using it, I realized it was a useful concept concisely stated. I would suggest that calling it "original research" is a stretch, as I simply heard someone use a word and found it useful. When I went to Wikipedia looking for more information on the concept, I found it wasn't there, so I started an article about it. I can certainly add the footnote for the meeting time and place when Mr. Johns used the word, and I will. Billvh375 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usage. Brexit is used everywhere. On the other hand I couldn't find anything for this term. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So to clarify, with regard to Wikipedia's role in the evolution of language, Wikipedia is only for chronicling the evolution of language by documenting neologisms once they've already become popular? Or is Wikipedia allowed to participate in the evolution of language by documenting useful neologisms that might be relevant to our evolving society? Billvh375

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article seems to be a duplicate of fungiculture. Capewearer (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respectfully disagree that this article is a duplicate of fungiculture. The article fungiculture as currently written, pertains only to cultivation of edible fungi, and is a good overview of edible fungi production techniques. Most of those techniques only apply to edible fungi while fungi for other industries (such as pharmaceuticals) are produced in entirely different ways. The myriad other growing allied industries (pharmaceuticals, bioremediation, erosion control, ecological packaging, etc.) which have nothing to do with edible fungi, are ignored in the article fungiculture. Cultivating edible fungi is only one piece of the overall Myco-Industrial Complex. Billvh375
Delete. Pure WP:OR, this term is not used in scholarly literature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the 2nd user who has used the term "original research" regarding this article, so there must be something I'm missing. If someone could please explain, I'd appreciate it.

Wikipedia's page on WP:OR states 'The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist'. This neologism is not a fact, an allegation, or an idea. It is simply a definition. Are definitions also potentially "original research" though not a category mentioned as such? Billvh375

Delete as original research, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NEO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and made up on one day. Yes, despite the several citations in the page, this is not an actual encyclopedia article. We don't publish original research, and if this were 2006, or even 2012, I could forgive a reader who didn't known that. However, it's 2020: everybody knows that we don't allow every new phrase to have its own article. At this point in our history, willful ignorance is no defense. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:TOOSOON appears to apply here. at WP:TOOSOON there is a suggestion of making a draft instead of a published article. However the deletion header says not to move an article during the deletion process. Does this include moving an article into the draft space? If so, when is the appropriate time to move an article into a draft space? Regarding the previous comment "everybody knows that we don't allow every new phrase to have its own article"... Perhaps everybody knows NOW, since I have just been educated, but everybody certainly did NOT know. To assume that potential new editors are experts on all Wikipedia's rules is perhaps assuming too much? Billvh375 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. I don't see the point of a redirect to fungiculture because of its total lack of use and WP:SURPRISE factor. b uidhe 01:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that a redirect to fungiculture wouldn't make sense, as per the comment above, these items are distinctly different to anyone understanding the topics. Billvh375 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also we don't need a comment after every editor's perspective on the AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of churches in Harvard, Illinois

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

Neither the topic list nor any of the individual entries are notable. No reliable, independent sources can be found. Previous WP:Prod removed with a weak WP:OSE reason. Fails under the policy WP:NOTDIR and notability guideline WP:LISTN. CBS527^Talk 04:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Directory of non-notable local buildings/religious organizations, no more appropriate for Wikipedia than a directory of every restaurant, private club, retail outlet, local civic group, or whatever else in a city. Reywas92^Talk 06:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, to merit a standalone list this would require either sufficient notable entries or a demonstration that LISTN is met. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:LISTN fail. Hog Farm (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Professional wrestling throws#Death Valley Driver. Deleting band content, and creating a redirect to the wrasslin' move. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley Driver

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

Band does not appear to be notable per WP:NMUSIC. There are no citations to any reliable sources in the article and the body of the article reads like promotional copy. A cursory Google search reveals a capsule review of one of their albums in Exclaim! magazine, but that alone does not seem like a solid basis for notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Professional wrestling throws#Death Valley Driver. KaisaL (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Most of the Google results seem to be professional wrestling-related. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect the search term as suggested by the previous voter). Note that the band has won some PEI Music Awards and East Coast Music Awards (see e.g. [23]), and both of those are dedicated to their region in Canada. Those awards ceremonies seem to attract only local media coverage. In turn, that gets this band some very brief listings in local media. They have a brief mention at Blabbermouth for one gig opening for Metallica ([24]) and occasional album reviews at specialty blogs, but I can find little else in reliable sources that is specifically about them and their music. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer520. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wimarshana Wijesuriya

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, the only independent articles relate to the 2012 book launch, which border on press releases rather than indepth analysis of his book. The only other sources I have been able to find are book retail websites, library catalogs, listing his only publication to date and social media websites. Dan arndt (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kia platform IDs

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

The list article seems weird and might not comply with WP:LISTN. Abishe (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. Doesn't appear to have much context, it's just a list of car models which could easily just be covered under List of Kia Motors automobiles. Ajf773 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two redirects, there has been very little comments on the item. No prejudice against renominating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PES Society

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

Can't find significant coverage. A few mentions and an interview, but nothing that meets GNG ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is more coverage that can be provided but does not necessarily warrant being mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilebrahim (talk • contribs)

See articles here https://esportscentral.co.za/other/catching-up-with-the-pes-society/

And here https://esportscentral.co.za/fifa/king-of-the-castle-pes-vs-fifa-tournament-announced/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilebrahim (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of the tournaments hosted by the organisation http://zombiegamer.co.za/king-of-the-castle-pes-vs-fifa-2020-tournament — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilebrahim (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But is this significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? No one doubts that they exist, just that they aren't notable enough. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 09:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 06:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the progress of this notice? There has been no movement, can it please be resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilebrahim (talk • contribs) 09:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Singanamala Ramesh

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

Unknown film producer with no sources. Fails WP: Notability for film makers. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Would suggest WP:PROD for similar articles. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found couple of sources on him this, this, this. There are more covering the same story. --Less Unless (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:OUTCOMES. We have for many years agreed with producers, absent strong evidence otheriwse, are ordinary and run of the mill business people who don't automatically get their own article here. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xigou

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

Fails GNG. Completely unsourced and nothing attributable can be located. I suspect it is a thing (likely a regional variety of the Saluki), but there is nothing attributable on it. Cavalryman (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - fails GNG. Also WP:NOTDIC - this is not a dictionary of Chinese words. It remains unclear what dog the article refers to, and the original author had its External Links section to include the Saluki, now removed. William Harristalk 03:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see how it meets WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything for it with a before search Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW and lack of WP:SIGCOV. It's well settled here that dog breeds are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Tsz Ho (footballer, born 2000)

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

Doesn't pass either WP:GNG nor WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer which doesn't satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Judge Dredd#Major storylines. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

America (Judge Dredd story)

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

Just like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechanismo, I think this should be SOFTDELETE by redirecting (and I guess merging the one or so referenced sentence...) to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines. I don't want to do a mass nom for all ~10 storylines, I think we can be bold and redirect them in a short while, but I'd like to wait until we get a consensus for this (second) related AfD before boldy tackling and redirecting the remainder (which you can see at template:Judge Dredd). Ping two editors who commented on the prior AfD (User:Sgeureka, User:TTN). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Librarians Welfare Organization

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

Non-notable organisation. Only one reference to the company's own website. Also, the content is quite promotional. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftity due to complete lack of independent sources, but can be vetted through AfC after enough references are added. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is not the first AfD I've seen where it's been lamented that sound engineers get short shrift when it comes to WP:N. It may be worth starting a discussion or RFC to develop a better WP:SNG for sound engineers. Be that as it may, there's clear consensus here to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hutch (sound engineer)

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. None of the sources in his article are about him specifically, and as to the claim to be a member of the band Queens of the Stone Age, that article only mentions him in passing twice. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a shame that the media doesn't write about prolific producers, audio engineers, mastering engineers, and other behind-the-scenes music professionals, but they don't. That means there's no way they'd ever meet GNG. Short of winning a Grammy or a some other major award, there's no way that we would ever consider creating an article for these subjects. Hutch is no different. This does not mean that he's not important to the record making process, it only means that he's not notable as a result. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the connection to QOTSA. Yes, it's a problem that sound engineers who are well-known within their field are ignored by WP, but that's how we keep space free for all those Pokemon and Batman villains. However some bands are big and long-established enough that their collaborations do get discussed, and QOTSA are one of those, per WP:MUSICBIO#6. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion #6 is for musicians, not sound engineers. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His article seems to solely be his association with Queens of the Stone Age - even the references are things like band profiles - and notability is not inherited. KaisaL (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Walter Görlitz and WP:NOTINHERITED. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sycamore, Arizona

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

Another isolated siding, this time perched on a ledge on the southwest bank of the Verde River. Probably named after Sycamore Canyon a short ways to the north, but redirection seems ill-advised given that this disambig page claims that there are four other canyons with the same name in the state. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - AZ Archives mentions a "Sycamore Station" at this location and GMaps shows railroad-related equipment and buildings, but there's no indication that this was ever a "populated place" much less a notable one. –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Korvi Rakshand

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Whole article talks about JAAGO Foundation rather that the person (only first two line & two line in Early life section). All of sources are primary or press release or interview. There are also wrong information e.g. he didn't win Commonwealth Youth Awards 2013. I did google search in English & Bengali but found nothing notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As আফতাবুজ্জামান said, this article seems to be more about the history of the JAAGO Foundation instead of actually telling us about the person. 4 of the 8 citations are to the JAAGO foundations website. There doesn't seem to be much coverage except for the 8 sources, so fails WP:SIGCOV as well. Though, it might be a good idea to merge the article with the one for the JAAGO Foundation. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 09:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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