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. – bradv 🍁 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Nana aba Duncan

Nana aba Duncan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a radio broadcaster, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for radio broadcasters. As always, every radio personality is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- notability for radio broadcasters requires things like winning significant awards, or at least being the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in sources independent of herself, to clear WP:GNG. But none of the seven footnotes here represent what's required: two are from her own employer, and thus aren't independent of her for the purposes of establishing her notability; two are from WordPress blogs that aren't reliable or notability-supporting sources at all; one is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a primary source press release from a directly affiliated organization; one briefly mentions her name as having modelled for a photograph in a community art show, in a source that's otherwise about that art show and not about her. And the only one that actually passes all of those tests, by being all of "independent of her", "genuinely about her" and "from a real notability-assisting media outlet", is still just a 76-word blurb -- so that source isn't substantive enough to get her over GNG all by itself either, if it's the only GNG-worthy source that can be shown.
To be clear, this is not an "I've never heard of her" argument, because I have heard of her -- in fact, I live in Toronto and listen almost exclusively to CBC radio, so I literally wake up to her every weekend -- but the notability test for people is the quality and depth and range and independence of the sources that can be provided to support the article, and these just aren't the sources that would get her over the bar. Bearcat ( talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• KEEP: Everything outlined above is a case study in the structural and systemic issues that prevent equitable representation of BIPOC on Wikipedia. Nominating the page for deletion based a black and white interpretation of a guideline - during Black History Month, no less - is a misguided and overly pedantic interpretation of notability requirements. -- Dnllnd ( talk) 00:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Dnllnd, see WP:RGW and remember to format your AFD votes properly. ミラ P 00:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• If we're going to link to things to justify overly rigid interpretations of guidelines for someone who hosts a province wide radio show, let's at least try to balance things out by including Gender bias on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red.-- Dnllnd ( talk) 00:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Hosting a provincewide radio show is not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have reliable source coverage, in unaffiliated media outlets other than her own employer, about her work as host of a radio show. She would have to host a national show, heard literally coast to coast from Vancouver to St. John's, before she had a chance to be considered "inherently" notable — and even then, she would still have to show some evidence of media coverage from sources other than her own employer — but anything less than that lives or dies on the quality of her sourceability, not just on stating that she has a job and sourcing the fact to her own employer's own self-published website. Bearcat ( talk) 05:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• As important as it is to improve our coverage of people of colour and women, we do not do so by waiving our notability and reliable sourcing rules so that members of minority groups get into Wikipedia on weak quality sourcing, while only white men have to actually meet any of our stated notability standards. We do so by identifying the women and people of colour who do meet our existing notability standards and are getting overlooked, not by waiving the notability standards so that only white men actually have to meet them at all. Bearcat ( talk) 04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Saying that the CBC article isn't a notability-supporting source because she works for the CBC seems a bit unfair, essentially penalizing her for working for a broadcaster. Both LocalLove and byblacks are blogs, but they both have editorial teams, and byblacks is funded by a grant from the government of Canada. Hosting an event at the Toronto International Festival of Authors also suggests that Duncan is well-known as a broadcaster in Toronto. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 01:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Broadcasters who work for the CBC are not "penalized" by the fact that self-published content from their own employer is not clinching of notability — many CBC employees have no problem showing outside coverage from sources other than their own employer. Matt Galloway has independent coverage, Anna Maria Tremonti has independent coverage, Carol Off has independent coverage, Ian Hanomansing has independent coverage, Rosemary Barton has independent coverage, and on and so forth. But a broadcaster who cannot show independent coverage is not deemed notable just because their own employer "covered" them internally — if content self-published by a person's own employer were all it took to establish their encyclopedic notability, then we would always have to keep an article about every single person who ever worked for any radio or television station at all, because every radio and television personality always has a staff profile on their own employer's self-published website. And if that were how notability worked in any other field either, then we would always have to keep an article about every single person who has a social media profile on Facebook or Instagram or LinkedIn. Notability for all people is always determined by the extent to which sources that don't have a vested interest in the person's career have chosen to invest their editorial resources into creating and publishing unaffiliated content about the person's career accomplishments. It's the same way it works for newspaper journalists: a Toronto Star journalist is not notable on the basis of content published by the Toronto Star itself, but probably is notable if the same accomplishment leads to a story in The Globe and Mail or the Ottawa Citizen.

And blogs are not accorded special status as "reliable sources" just because they got a government publishing grant — the definition of a reliable source is not where the money came from, it's how much established status the thing does or doesn't have as a media outlet. And hosting an event at a local festival doesn't establish notability either — the notability test for broadcasters is not "well-known in her own city", but requires a nationalized profile, national awards and/or reliable source coverage in real media outlets. And furthermore, if you have to rely on the Festival of Authors' own self-published website for the claim that she hosted an event, then that automatically isn't an article-clinching notability claim either — nothing you can say about any person, regardless of their occupation, ever constitutes a valid notability claim until you can reference it to sources that are fully independent of the claim being made. If you have to cite a directly affiliated organization or company's own self-published content to support the claim, because independent coverage of the claim in unaffiliated sources does not exist, then by definition it's not an article-clinching notability claim — nothing is ever a notability claim until unaffiliated media outlets have been motivated to write and publish independent journalism about it.

And also, a source has to have her as its subject, not just briefly mention her name one time in the process of being fundamentally about a subject other than her, before it helps to support her notability. Bearcat ( talk) 04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: Not the first time Bearcat wouldn't count a reputable blog with editorial oversight as GNG support just for being a blog. ミラ P 02:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

That's because Bearcat is correct that blogs do not count as reliable sources for establishing notability. A blog is not automatically "reputable" just because it has "editorial oversight" — even garbage sources like Breitbart and The Blaze have editorial chains of command, but that doesn't inherently prove that they're "trustworthy" or notability-supporting sources. The definition of a "reliable source" is not just the ability to locate the real names of one or more people who are associated with it — it is a question of whether the outlet in question has an established reputation as a trustworthy media outlet or not. And because websites sometimes can and do go out of business, and weblinks actually do die, the definition of a reliable source also requires the permanent ongoing ability to recover the source, from library microfilms or an archiving database like ProQuest or newspapers.com, if the existing weblink ever dies. If you cannot be 100 per cent certain that even if the website permanently died tomorrow, its content would still be recoverable forever, then it is automatically not a notability-making source in and of itself — the very definition of a reliable source requires that there be some form of offsite paper or database backup that can be accessed separately from the publication's current web presence, so that the content remains verifiable in perpetuity, regardless of what might happen to the publication's current web presence. Bearcat ( talk) 04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bearcat: No problem! Both byblacks and Local Love are archived by the Internet Archive. In fact, there's a bot running on English Wikipedia that automatically notifies the Internet Archive when a new external link is added, so the Wayback Machine can make sure to crawl and save it. So that's okay about the in perpetuity thing. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Nope. Archived in a different format — because firstly, what happens if the Internet Archive also dies, and secondly, the Internet Archive also "archives" unreliable source webhits just as readily as reliable ones, so it proves nothing about a source's reliability at all. Allow me to rephrase myself: there's no such thing as any reliable source that doesn't have some form of publicly accessible paper or microfilm backup that can be accessed off-web if necessary. Bearcat ( talk) 05:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Is that written down anywhere? The Internet Archive is pretty stable, and I'm pretty sure nobody's backing up every article on CNN.com on microfilm. I looked at WP:GNG and WP:RS and they don't mention paper or microfilm backups. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 05:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Funnily enough, CNN is a television channel, with content backup on video that can be accessed off-web in video libraries. And guess what else I see all the time in the news archiving databases I use when I need to locate deadlinked, paywalled or pregooglable news coverage: transcripts of television newscasts. It's simple common sense: weblinks can and do die, and we run into that problem all the time. So if we don't possess the ability to recover a dead reference to verify what it said, then the content is not referenced anymore. Bearcat ( talk) 05:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Again: Where is the policy that says that all sources must be backed up in a way that's accessible off-web? -- Toughpigs ( talk) 05:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

It's not a question of "policy", it's a question of "anything that meets all of our requirements to be considered a reliable source will, by definition, always automatically have that by virtue of the way the world works". Newspapers, by definition, have or had print editions — even the relatively few newspapers that have recently gone fully web-only, if they have any accepted status as real or trustworthy newspapers at all, still get archived in the same databases that their old print editions are archived in. Magazines, by definition, have or had print editions that can be found in libraries. Books, by definition, have paper copies that can be found in libraries. Television network newscasts, by definition, have video archives and paper transcripts that can be found in libraries. It's not that we have a policy demanding archiving as a condition of being a reliable source — it's that archiving is a thing that automatically happens to any source that is actually reliable. It may sound a bit tautological, but it's actually the truth: making backup copies is a thing the world automatically does with all genuinely reliable sources as a matter of course, so anything that meets our conditions to be considered a reliable source will have backups because backing up reliable sources is just an automatic feature of how the world works.

The Internet Archive, on the other hand, just scrapes everything on the web whether it's a reliable source or not, so a blog doesn't magically turn into a reliable source just because you can retrieve it from there. If it were a valuable or reliable source, there would be a paper copy somewhere, because ever since humans learned the hard way that reliable sources can be lost if we're not careful, trying to ensure that sources exist in both digital and physical form, and backing them up in multiple places so that if one copy does get lost or destroyed others still exist, is what the world does with sources that are reliable enough to preserve. Bearcat ( talk) 06:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

You cited five policies in your nomination: WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:BLOGS and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. None of those policies mention hard-copy backups on paper or microfilm. The most relevant policy, WP:BLOGS, says that editors should avoid using personal blogs, because they're self-published; it doesn't say anything about digital media being inherently invalid. Your assertions are not backed up by policy. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 06:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Nice strawman. I specifically said it's not a policy question we're talking about — archiving of reliable sources is simply a basic feature of how the world works. Nothing that is a reliable source ever lacks hard copy backup, because hard copy backup is what the world automatically always does with its reliable sources as a matter of course. Bearcat ( talk) 06:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

As a digital archivist I'm going to tap in here and say, "hard copy backup is what the world automatically always does with its reliable sources" is not universal or achievable. It's also patently false. We're losing born digital resources at an incalculable rate not because they aren't reliable, but because the resources and infrastructure don't exist to maintain them or recreate them in hard copy. And that's completely ignoring the threat climate change and war pose to the viability or archived records of value stored blow current sea levels or in vulnerable geographic locations. This discussion has descended into philosophical navel gazing and is taking away from the issue at hand. Nana aba Duncan is notable regardless of whether or not you like how it's been supported. If I'm going to have RGW thrown at me for pointing out the obvious, I'd like the record to show you're doing the same with your black and white approach to notability and long-term verifiability. We'd all like the blue sky scenario, the reality is we don't have it.-- Dnllnd ( talk) 14:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bearcat: You're Bearcat. ミラ P 05:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

You say that like I didn't know it. "Illeism is sometimes used in literature as a stylistic device." Bearcat ( talk) 06:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Toughpigs, but my RGW argument still stands. ミラ P 02:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets GNG. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 11:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:GNG. As a writer, I think the argument that all reliable sources will be backed up on microfilm or paper hilarious. Sadly, neither of those things last forever (just like web links) and they get lost (!) so it seems ridiculous to require these. Sometimes digitized copies are all you can find. I actually write for wholly digital publications that are nonetheless published by editorial teams, backed up by trustworthy sources, and considered reliable by universities and other institutions. It's not RGW to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than go off on a tangent pursuing vague notions of a complete, easily navigable physical library for all sources, that will be magically accessible to all of Wikipedia's present and future contributors. IphisOfCrete ( talk) 04:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The only GNG-eligible sources present in the entire article come from her own employer. There is not a single other source in the entire article that is both (a) reliable, and (b) about her (which is not the same thing as "glancingly mentioning her in the process of being fundamentally about something else") — but journalists don't get into Wikipedia on the basis of content self-conferred by the issuer of their own paycheques, either: they get into Wikipedia when they've been the subject of coverage in sources other than their own employer, so her own employer can't magically GNG her all by itself if there are no other GNG-worthy sources anywhere else in the article. Bearcat ( talk) 19:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep meets WP:GNG Tealbrain ( talk) 00:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. It's possible that Euro Mediterranean Airlines warrants its own article, but notability hasn't been established here. Regardless, there is consensus to delete this in its present form. – bradv 🍁 15:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Air Italy Egypt

Air Italy Egypt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article on short-lived, charter airline in Egypt that once may have operated one (1) airplane has no verifiable sources (there are two unverifiable sources of questionable quality). A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional references. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 23:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nomination. TH1980 ( talk) 05:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, fails notability guidelines. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 09:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Note that Flight International is a reliable source and is verifiable (although their online archives are not currently available) as paper copies of the magazine exist. What needs to be confirmed is the nature of the coverage in the Flight directory and whether it says enough to be counted as significant coverage under GNG. Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Nigel Ish, Hmmmm... any clues on how this could be accomplished in a reasonable manner? even assuming it does, do we have a second independent source on which to base notability? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 21:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rename back to Euro Mediterranean Airlines as it clearly operated commercial services under that name, normal benchmark is an airline had to operate at least one commercial service to be of note. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

"normal benchmark is an airline had to operate at least one commercial service" - I am unable to find a policy describing that. Chetsford ( talk) 07:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rename per MilborneOne. -- Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 13:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete a company that only ran for a few years and operated a few planes. Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 01:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv 🍁 15:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Apatas Air

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

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

Article on short-lived, charter airline in Lithuania that once may have operated two small aircraft has no verifiable sources (there are two unverifiable sources of questionable quality). A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional references. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nomination. TH1980 ( talk) 05:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Totally fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 ( talk • contribs)

Comment Note that Flight International is a reliable source and is verifiable (although their online archives are not currently available) as paper copies of the magazine exist. What needs to be confirmed is the nature of the coverage in the Flight directory and whether it says enough to be counted as significant coverage under GNG. Nigel Ish ( talk) 09:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Flight 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Ogmios group

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

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

Article on a real estate company has a single reference whose quality is unclear as it's a dead link. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional references other than some Lithuanian language press releases from the firm. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Chetsford ( talk) 23:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per reasons given in the nomination. It seems to lack notability. The only things out there about it are press releases. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG. potential advert. LibStar ( talk) 00:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:MILL. Saying it's one of the biggest by way of "turnover" is unverifiable and Puffery. Bearian ( talk) 16:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No references. Solely promotion. Dorama285 01:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Gary Gygax. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 00:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hekaforge Productions

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

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

Article on a profitmaking company is sourced to a few short sentences in a 412 page reference book. A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) fails to find additional WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Chetsford ( talk) 23:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 23:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 23:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 23:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge and Redirect to Gary Gygax. Company not of interest outside of its relationship to its creative principal, but content still worth retaining per BEFORE C.4 and PRESERVE. Of course, the Nom could withdraw the nomination now and just do the work himself. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

No objection to Redirect. I object to Merge due to the company already being described in sufficient detail in the Gygax article, sourced to the same reference as this article. Chetsford ( talk) 23:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect To Gygax article. Merging doesn't seem necessary per last comment. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep, per WP:SK#1. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

English Shepherd

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

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

Fails GNG, all of the verifiable cited sources are not RS. A search of Google reveals nothing attributable, only the usual self published owners guides etc. Cavalryman ( talk) 22:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator as two reliable sources have been presented by Thjarkur. Cavalryman ( talk) 04:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Is mentioned in these two non-self-published sources: [1] [2], but it has surprisingly few mentions in other sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thjarkur, thank you for finding those two, I did not see them amongst the first ten pages of Google books I trawled through, due to them I have withdrawn the nomination. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 04:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep I don't see any real argument here for delete. I am sure the article can be source and I don't see how a real WP:BEFORE has been done at all. I mean, I found this source straight away, and there are plenty of sources on the internet to use. This AfD is a joke and a waste of people's time. Govvy ( talk) 10:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

A single webpage does not notability make. Cavalryman ( talk) 04:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Snow keep. I have no idea why this was nominated. This is just as notable as any other dog breed. There are multiple clubs and organizations devoted to this breed. They were previously known as American farm shepherds in the USA. [3] —Мандичка ^YO 😜 11:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - there are not a huge number of sources, but it seems to have enough to be notable. Bearian ( talk) 16:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Move to Cho Min academic credentials scandal. There is a clear consensus that Cho Min herself is not notable, although the scandal is. Since we're split on whether this is better covered in its own article or as a section in the article about Cho Kuk, I'll move this for now, without prejudice against a merge discussion on the talk page as the article gets reworked. – bradv 🍁 15:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Cho Min

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

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

The article needs to be scrutinized, in particular with regard to WP:BLP, whether its subject has independent of her father encyclopedic notability. Ymblanter ( talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter ( talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter ( talk) 08:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete and redirect to her father per WP:CRIME "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Her only claim to independent notability appears to be her falsified credentials; otherwise, as an ordinary medical student, it would be far WP:TOOSOON for notability through research contributions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete , merge and redirect to Cho Kuk as the reason for notability is through falsifying achievements. Taewangkorea ( talk) 04:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete fraudlent claims of doing things are not so rare as to make one notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a major case of fraud that will have lasting impact on Korean society, especially in education, and is comparable to Hwang Woo-suk, Chung Yoo-ra and Shin Jeong-ah. Many of the issues involved are still in an on-going basis, with more information coming from the trial and her fraudulent college admissions. There are many repurcussions surrounding this person, and if the article is deleted, it would be difficult to add new information as this matter progresses. Koraskadi ( talk) 18:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Cho_Kuk#Falsification_of_Academic_Achievements_of_Cho_Min, which should make it easy enough for people to continue adding developing coverage to Wikipedia. If the section gets so long as to be unwieldy, or starts to include information with no relevance to Kuk, an article can be split off again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Courtesy ping to Neiltonks, PC78, Finnusertop, Christian140, who participated alongside Koraskadi and myself in a relevant merge discussion that had gone stale before this AfD was opened. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I raised concerns with this article back in November; Koraskadi's comment above only serves to highlight the fact that it's the case which is notable, not the person, and even then it seems largely due to her father's involvement. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:PSEUDO both seem to apply here. PC78 ( talk) 19:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to Cho_Kuk#Falsification_of_Academic_Achievements_of_Cho_Min, for reasons outlined above by Rosguill. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 17:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Move to Cho Min academic credentials scandal. As PC78 points out, the scandal itself is notable as attested by the multitude of reliable sources covering it. As a topic it is ill-suited to be covered in full in either a biography of Cho Min or Cho Kuk because it is about a conspiracy between the two of them and its societal impact. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse If Keep is not viable, then I agree with this course of action, creating an article on the event itself. 13:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koraskadi ( talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per GNG or merge to new article about the scandal, per the sheer volume of articles and videos about her. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 11:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge and/or move as is reasonable. There's clearly a major scandal here, with plenty of reliable sources, and notoriety can be the basis of notability. Bearian ( talk) 16:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep and Move to Cho Min academic credentials scandal. Per above points, the scandal is notable by the reliable sources covering it. Best Idolmm ( talk) 08:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 02:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Ridgefield School District (Connecticut)

Ridgefield School District (Connecticut) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, unorganized, no secondary sources –– Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. –– Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. –– Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Offhand, this seems like a lazy deletion nomination, with no mention of wp:BEFORE searching. "unorganized" is not a deletion reason, nor is "no secondary sources". Nor is "not notable" if nominator has not done some work.

Anyhow, it's a school district and sources will exist, about the district and/or about its 8 schools, and it could obviously be developed. You could add secondary sources if you wanted; wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. If you are a deletionist, then you should support Keeping or creating school district articles, towards heading off creation of separate articles about all the schools. New articles about any of:

• • Barlow Mountain Elementary School[3] (329 students; in grades PreK-5)
  • Branchville Elementary School[4] (360; PreK-5)
  • Farmingville Elementary School[5] (329; K-5)
  • Ridgebury Elementary School[6] (338; PreK-5)
  • Scotland Elementary School[7] (374; PreK-5)
  • Veterans Park Elementary School[8] (282; PreK-5)
  • Scotts Ridge Middle School (closer) and Ridgefield High School (farther) share the same campus.
  • East Ridge Middle School[9] (500; 6-8)
  • Scotts Ridge Middle School[10] (697)

may probably be redirected to this article, and/or redirects could be created now.

Help develop Wikipedia, not force multiple editors to consider AFD ideas where generally Wikipedia's typical treatment is already settled, as here. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per Doncram, and the half hour I just spent finding multiple sources. The subject of a Wikipedia article is notable if reliable sources exist, regardless of how brief or poorly written an article may be in its current state. In this instance, knowing to search on "Ridgefield Schools" rather than the full article title was key to conducting an adequate search for WP:BEFORE. Below are sources that may be used to expand the existing article. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 20:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

1. Really, Really, Big Bronze Tiger Drops at Ridgefield High School
2. Ridgefield test scores are on the rise
3. Schools seek $102 million budget, 4.11% spending increase
4. Serious infrastructure problems at Ridgefield schools
5. Ridgefield schools hire 19 new teachers, 22 staffers
6. Ridgefield schools will return $50,000 to town
7. Ridgefield schools to request nearly $100 million budget
8. Ridgefield schools try to fix waning math scores
9. Ridgefield School District, Connecticut Demographics
10. Sen. Chris Murphy recognizes Ridgefield freshman for MLK essay
11. Ridgefield schools hire former Newington chief
12. Police Investigating Hazing - High School Won't Release Number of Students or Teams Involved
13. Ridgefield Coach Resigns

• Keep per sources found, and because school district articles are commonly used as merger or redirect targets. Bearian ( talk) 16:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - besides all the sources above showing a clear GNG pass, US school districts are inherently notable by the same standard incorporated settlements are. They have fixed boundries, and charge taxes. John from Idegon ( talk) 11:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - to expand upon John from Idegon's comment, I believe school districts qualify under WP:NGEO as Populated, legally recognized places. MarginalCost ( talk) 12:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. New sources from definitely-reliable publications were added by Toughpigs and no arguments have been raised to dispute the relevance or quality of these over a full relist period. ~ mazca ^talk 00:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Superstar Limo

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

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

Not notable. Could not find any sources. The two sources cited are a YouTube channel and a personal website, neither of which are WP:RS. Redirected to Disney California Adventure, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. -- φ OnePt618 ^Talk φ 06:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 21:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to List of former Disney California Adventure attractions. I'm finding plenty of mentions of the ride, but the vast majority of them are either from unreliable sources (blogs, humor articles, etc), or from purely local coverage. The few bits of information that are showing up in potentially reliable sources are limited to pretty much name dropping it as a former attraction at the park. So, I'm not seeing the coverage needed for this to have an independent article. It is already covered in the list I suggested, though, so at the very least a redirection there should be kept. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as an example of one of Disney's rare flops of an attraction. This in and of itself makes it notable.-- φ OnePt618 ^Talk φ 07:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• So that allows it to completely circumvent WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:V? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 19:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree that the article is light as it stands now, and could really be beefed up with more citations. But those citations are plentiful regarding its notability. For example, Here is a recent Orange County newspaper article that I just ran across that explains how a recent Disney+ show is highlighting it: "The oft-maligned Superstar Limo dark ride is held up as a prime example of offensive theme park design." I'll add this and some other references to the article to beef it up. But I do think it is plenty notable.-- φ OnePt618 ^Talk φ 06:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I searched for the ride after reading this article. So it's a real world case of wanting to know more about it. Jason Quinn ( talk) 06:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I've added some more sources, including the New York Times and the Boston Globe, talking about the ride as the worst original attraction in Disney California Adventure. I believe that there are now enough sources to establish notability. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 04:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Wayne Keon

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

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO (creator= Keonw) of a writer, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for writers. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which writers are automatically entitled to have articles just because their own work technically metaverifies its own existence -- the notability test for a writer requires some evidence of his significance as a writer, such as winning notable literary awards or at least having enough reliable source coverage (journalism, critical analysis, etc.) about him to clear WP:GNG. But the only notability claim in evidence here is that his work exists, and the referencing is not getting him over GNG: two are just his own writing being cited as circular verification of its own existence, two are mere directory entries on the self-published websites of organizations or companies he's directly affiliated with, and one is a completely unrecoverable deadlink whose content and reliability are impossible to verify (even on the Wayback Machine, it was already a dead link the first time it was ever scraped at all.) As always, the notability test for a writer is not just that he exists, but requires journalism to be done about him in media -- and even a writer who can be shown to properly clear our notability standards still isn't entitled to create his own article himself, per WP:COI. Bearcat ( talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I have notified the article's creator about this dicussion. Mind matrix 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I originally tagged this for COI (based on the username of the creator), and performed a cursory web and Google Books search for this person. Indications are that there has been some coverage of him, but I cannot access any of it. Whether this coverage is by reliable sources is the concern, and I currently do not see such sources. Perhaps there are offline sources (eg - Canadian literature or indigenous culture magazines), or coverage accessible only via ProQuest or similar archives. The current article reads a bit like a CV and a bit as a collection of trivia. Mind matrix 22:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sourcing does not support WP:GNG and does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOET. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 01:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Trimbak Tupe

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

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

The person is mayor of Aurangabad, 6th largest city of Maharashtra. The article does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or other criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES - equivalent to a county executive of a relatively minor district. Please ping me if you can prove me incorrect. Bearian ( talk) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and the sourcing does not support a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Move back to draft. This was promoted from draft space to main space by an unqualified reviewer. Based on the comments here, I'd probably delete this, but instead I'm just going to undo the incorrect acceptance and move it back to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Maayanadhi

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

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

Unknown film whose article was created to promote a person (Bhavathrani, whose biography is included in the production section). Also sources are from film sites and local news sites. DragoMynaa ( talk) 23:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa ( talk) 23:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa ( talk) 23:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep: Not a well written article, but taking into account that its a released movie with enough references, we should consider to keep but it needs editing. The9Man talk 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Completely promotional per nom. Breaches WP:NPOV and also fails WP:GNG. Abishe ( talk) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete None of the sources describe about movie. All references are about the persons in cast and crew. GargAvinash ( talk) 03:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep It has WP:NPOV issues but it passes WP:NF. Tayi Arajakate ( talk) 16:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• comment I edited it out. I also came across Bhavatharini, which is factually incorrect, and appears to be a hoax. I have not performed any searches regarding the film or Bhavatharini yet, but I have a feeling COI/UPE and/or giving out misinformation can be a possibility here. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Possibly not the best way to present this content, but a clear consensus not to delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Oceanic Airlines

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

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

Compilation of fictional organizations from several fictional universes that share similar name; none appears to be discussed in depth and therefore all seem to fail WP:NFICTION/GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge or Delete Keep I found some refs in Adweek (though that one refers back to Wikipedia in a circular way), and Fortune, but overall it seems to be too non-notable for a standalone article. However, it could probably be merged to List of fictional companies if someone were to create that article. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 12:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• I amended my opinion to "keep" after finding more RS. Den of Geek and The Wayfarer's Handbook: A Field Guide for the Independent Traveler both have paragraphs on it, with the latter having a list of appearances. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 14:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:NEXIST: Besides the refs listed above, I found this: " Hollywood's Flight Frights: The Bombs Are Back: Now It's Safe to Scare in the Air" by Greg Morago, Hartford Courant (July 21, 2005). It's a newspaper article specifically about movies and TV shows using "Oceanic Airlines" to depict airline disasters. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 18:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as multiple reliable sources have been identified in this discussion that show significant coverage of the subject so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep on the basis that this has appeared across several works and is a likely search target (I know I would have looked it up). No prejudice to make this a a case study for Fictional company, where it was already described pre-AfD. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 13:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge Since the vast majority of this article is listing trivial references to this fictional airline that really should be removed from the article. Most of the things listed are trivial mentions, such as, most ridiculously, its use as a template for flight reminders in software. Once this gets trimmed of the useless trivia, what's left is reduced to a paragraph about Lost and a couple of items listed that can easily fit into a larger list article (such as some of those mentioned above). Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 23:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per GNG. It has appeared in several movies and other pop culture references, and WP:NEXIST may apply here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per GNG. Just because it's fictional doesn't mean it's not-notable. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 11:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Qualifies as a multiple-independent-use fictional company, in the same way that Acme Corporation does. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep – with all those references in popular culture, people will undoubtedly google 'Oceanic Airlines' to find out more. It seems perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to offer some info about it. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 10:51, 23 February 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. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Rani Hazarika

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

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

Run-of-the-mill playback singer. Google search shows that she exists and publicizes herself, but no in-depth coverage.

Article created by now-blocked promotional editor, draftified, move-warred back to article space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• • Delete per nom. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nominator. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there are many notable Indian playback singers, some with hundreds of credits, but this person seems not to be notable based on lack of significant coverage and relatively few songs. Bearian ( talk) 16:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. There's a general consensus here that the album is sufficiently notable and covered in enough sources. ~ mazca ^talk 00:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Something Supernatural

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

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

Not a notable work. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. My initial search when redirecting found no reliable sources, and few of the online metal "zines" even covered it. AllMusic has a database entry but no review or rating ( https://www.allmusic.com/album/something-supernatural-mw0002735553) The one source I found was https://www.guitarworld.com/features/something-supernatural-crobot-guitarist-chris-bishop-talks-new-album-and but it feels WP:ROUTINE. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 13:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Snow Keep for the WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Meets GNG for charting on numerous album charts for one, and diminishing sources as routine is very IDONTLIKEIT. Quidster4040 ( talk) 20:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

NOt an IDONTLIKE it response since 1) Billboard isn't returned when searching with Google and you added the charts after the nomination. Minor charts so I don't think it meets WP:NALBUM and certainly not GNG for the charting. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Billboard Heatseekers is not a significant chart; it is of value to industry insiders wishing to gauge the appeal of artists who have not yet charted proper. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 12:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I won't comment on the nominator's motivation, but the article needed to be improved rather than deleted. However, the fact that Billboard doesn't show up in Google is a strange excuse for not looking at Billboard directly. The album made the Hard Rock Albums chart, which cannot be dismissed as readily as the Heatseekers chart. That establishes enough notability for a viable stub article, and it can be fleshed out with material from many reviews in the usual hard rock/metal zines, plus several mentions in the reliable Loudwire (e.g. [4]). --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 13:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Improve the article by all means, but if the best we can say about the album is that it charted, then we can list that information in the subject's article with the same effect. We do not need a permastub. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I only did a brief search but was able to find a couple of reviews in reliable sources ( [5] [6]) as well as news stories that discuss the album ( [7] [8] [9]). There are also numerous reviews in sources which may or may not be reliable ( [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]). I'm not particularly familiar with this field/genre so I can't really tell offhand which of those are considered reliable or not; some of them at a glance do not appear to pass WP:RS, whereas for others, a search in the RS noticeboard indicates editors have previously suggested they could be considered reliable for limited purposes, such as in the case of an album review. In any event, even if you threw away all the questionable ones, I think between the coverage I've found so far in the definitely reliable sources, and the Billboard chart rankings, this subject passes notability standards enough that the article should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 16:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • First isn't a review of the album. Second, nationalrockreview.com, is not a RS. Again villagevoice.com, not about the album. Fourth and fifth are passing mentions. I stopped after the poor sourcing of those five. In short, not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • National Rock Review is a RS. The Loudwire source is a micro-review and a listing on a Best Albums of the Year list, which only further establishes notability. (Incidentally, here is another article from Loudwire about the album.) The other articles talk about aspects of the album, including individual singles and the accompanying tour. — Hunter Kahn 01:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The album has charted, and there are reliable sources. "My initial search when redirecting" is not relevant per WP:GOOGLEHITS, ditto "Billboard isn't returned when searching with Google". WP:ROUTINE is for regular events that always get coverage; it doesn't apply to the GuitarWorld source, which is an interview with a band about their new album -- not a routine event that always gets coverage no matter what. Lots of albums get released; they don't all get reviews in Guitar World and National Rock Review. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NALBUM states that "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria" and since all it seems to meet is charting, and no additional content, it fails notability criteria. Your argument that it charted is rubbish. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• The nominator is getting very close to WP:BLUDGEON territory here. That is a matter of opinion, but if the statement "Your argument that it charted is rubbish" is meant to conclude that the album did not chart, well it did: [16]. Or, if that statement is meant to conclude that the nominator does not think that charting matters, that argument is on the losing side of the WP:CONSENSUS process. When you emphasize the overwhelmingly flexible word may you have to accept that others will see it differently, and for valid reasons. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Please don't misrepresnt what I wrote. It charted, but not on major charts. The emphasis is not mine. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment My life is too hectic this week to weigh in with a fair keep or delete vote, given that I seldom do so unless I can devote the time to a thorough assessment of sources. That said, perhaps this subject merits a keep but it's a bit troubling to read so much rational based on editors proclaiming significance for charts that aren't, and deeming sources reliable that aren't. Under what criteria can a promotional entity such as National Rock Review be considered a Reliable Source? Because they have a wikipedia page? Please check their website's "about" link [17]. If they have undergone a wikipedia source review and have passed the test, then editors have made a mistake, IMO. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 23:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets GNG per the sources presented above. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 16:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Naz Choudhury

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

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

Plainly promotional, sources are primary (interviews), mention the subject only in passing, or don't actually pertain to the subject at all. Previous PROD contested by User:Aspects. Domeditrix ( talk) 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix ( talk) 21:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Besides the article being promotional - that lede - nearly all of his "notability" falls under WP:NOTINHERITED (involvement with a notable concert, performed on a notable show, etc.) -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 20:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• delete after performing a search, all I could find was coverage primary sources (either of the shows, or his interviews), the secondary sources are non-reliable telly/gossip sites. In short, subject fails WP:NCREATIVE, and as they dont have significant coverage in reliable sources, subject fails WP:GNG as well. Talking about article being promotional, it was that way even in 2012. I didnt go further in history. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 03:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:MILL and WP:OUTCOMES. This appears to be a very ordinary producer of shows, one of thousands, and we almost always delete pages about producers. Likewise, his appearance on reality television shows does not prove notability - literally thousands of Britons compete annually on such TV shows. Bearian ( talk) 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Every sentence is cited way too much. Also, there are a lot of primary sources. Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 01:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete For the same above reasons but I would also suggest that his dance company Bolly Flex (or is it FlexFX?) are potentially worthy of a Wikipedia page, in which Naz could be mentioned as a founder/director. In cleaning up the links most of them were connected with their performances, not Naz. It was particularly infuriating that he had apparently edited the link descriptions to mention his name, even if the articles were not about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.227.132.9 ( talk) 12:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

If you think the company meets the notability guidelines (I'm not certain that it does), feel free to make the page and submit it through Articles for Creation. To create an article, however, you need to make an account (apologies if you have one and just aren't logged in). Domeditrix ( talk) 13:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Noted, thanks. I don't have an account but felt so strongly about this entry that I ended up venturing into editing. Happy to leave the rest of the future edits and decisions to the rest of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.227.132.9 ( talk) 14:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

R.I.C. Dildar Nagar

R.I.C. Dildar Nagar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is supposed to be about a university but cites no sources. The article is plain nonsense and just states it is in the middle of a town. Dellwood546 ( talk) 20:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete for failing WP:V. The article's information is conflicting. While the categories says the subject is a higher ed. institution, it is affiliated to the state's secondary school board. An online list shows 72 schools in Dildarnagar, and R.I.C. is not on the list. The directory justdial.com lists dozens of universities and colleges in Dildarnagar but nothing like R.I.C. or RIC. The article claims the subject is a very large centrally located school, but no trace of it can be found beyond Wikipedia mirrors. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:V. Assuming good faith, thus must be misnamed, or perhaps it existed only briefly, which is common in Asia. Bearian ( talk) 16:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Jason M. Burns

Jason M. Burns (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be non-notable BLP with no reliable independent sources. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 17:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep The person has won awards, and has collabarated with numerous notable people, I do believe that it is notable enough. Dellwood546 ( talk) 19:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Neither "winning awards" nor collaborating with notable people meet any notability guideline. Indeed, WP:NOTINHERITED explicitly debars connection with notable people to be held in isolation as conferring notability, and one must win significant awards to meet WP:BIO. For WP:CREATIVE -- the guideline pertinent here -- what element does any keep proponent claim the subject meets, and with what evidence? Ravenswing 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Ravenswing - not even close to notable. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - in a field full of awards, this one is mundane. Sources include MySpace. Really?! Searches online only show press releases from Business Wire. Bearian ( talk) 17:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Central Valley Project. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Central Valley Project Water Association

Central Valley Project Water Association (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable organisation with no independent secondary sources available, and very little cited and sourced information on this page at all (primary or secondary). If any information is able to be rescued, could be merged into Central Valley Project instead. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 17:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - run of the mill riparian rights organization. We are not a web-host to list every real property organization or community association. A one-line selective merger would be the most a reasonable admin could do. Bearian ( talk) 17:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Wait a sec, the Central Valley is huge area of water rights issues, and this CVPWA looks huge within it, as an association of 70 districts. Is this the place, or nearly, depicted in Erin Brockovich (film)? The sleepy-seeming but corrupt local hugely important water rights shop. Is this literally the real-life domain of fictional Billy Bob Thornton / Goliath (TV series)'s season 3? I don't think this is necessarily run of the mill at all. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Search also on "CVPWA". Maybe it is not in current news. But searching either way in Google books gives links to CVPWA having lobbyists, and testifying before the U.S. Congress including in 1991 hearings about Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and to commenting within enviromental impact issue stuff about the American River watershed, and seems like a bunch more. I can't get all the way to see the contents within the books/reports. I am not sure about this organization. -- Doncram ( talk) 22:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Searched on "CVPWA" and there are lots of hits, but mostly quotes of the director stating the org's position on various issues. Not really in-depth coverage of the org. This story in US News is the best I found. [18], [19], [20] are some other mentions. MB 02:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There's no useful sources in the article (yes, I'm counting the External links), and none presented here in the AfD. No sources, no article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Central Valley Project. No sources indicate notability under GNG or NORG but definitely relevant to the Project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Museum of Beer and Brewing

Museum of Beer and Brewing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This museum has never been opened and there is very little evidence of notability whilst the museum has been planned. No evidence of multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 17:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The page claims it has opened but the source does not check out, and other sources and pages are all promotional. Nothing demonstrates notability. -- Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete source never said that it opened just that is was organized as a non-profit to start a collection. Not enough notability ( now). Royal broil 16:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No real agreement that the reviews are significant enough coverage to show notability. However also no real agreement that they don't. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Aridhu Aridhu

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

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

Unknown film with poor sources. This film fails to establish notability. DragoMynaa ( talk) 00:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa ( talk) 00:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa ( talk) 00:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa ( talk) 00:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete or move to draft space there are some sources, but just mere mentions Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep the New Indian Express reference in the article is a review directly of the film so counts as significant coverage but more is needed, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Also found a review of the film's music in The Hindu here Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: There are sources here. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete or move to draft space, at least until better sources are found. Only non-duplicate sources I could find were ^{[toxiboi 1]} and ^{[toxiboi 2]}, and those only mentioned the film. The articles themselves were more focused on actors.
  The current sources (in this rev) only come from two publications. I don't think the current sources in the article, nor the ones I found, really show that the movie adheres to WP:MOVIE. To quote that page, "reliable sources should have significant coverage." Not just say the film's name once and move on. – Toxi Boi! ^{( contribs)} 20:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The New Indian Express review and the Hindu review are both significant coverage directly about the film, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 00:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

List of red-light districts

List of red-light districts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a travel guide. This is an indiscriminate list of places where prostitution allegedly happens, although very few of the sources refer to them as red-light districts per se. As a stand-alone list, this fails WP:LISTN, and most of the entries on this list violate original research and/or synthesis. – bradv 🍁 15:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Compliant with WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN. WP:NLIST is irrelevant as this is not a list of people. All entries are either wikilinked to articles or referenced. Because the references do not specifically use the term "Red-light district" does not make this WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by John B123 ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, I meant WP:LISTN, and have made the correction above. – bradv 🍁 18:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ John B123: How exactly does using sources to put an entry in "list of red-light districts" where the place is not actually referred to as a red light district not a WP:SYNTH issue? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

How is it SYNTH? If in an article about a painting a references calls it a work, canvas, landscape or portrait but not a painting is that also SYNTH as the exact terminology is used? Of course not. The same principle applies here. -- John B123 ( talk) 19:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• The legal status by region belongs or is duplicated at Prostitution by region, so merge that content there. As for the list: very few of the citations actually call the listed item a red-light district - some are simply crime articles talking about prostitution in that area. Delete, or trim the list to only include those with secondary sources that refer to the area as a red-light district such as the Amsterdam or Montreal examples. Alternatively, move to List of places where prostitution has occurred. – xeno ^talk 18:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The assumption that the only reason for keeping a list of red-light districts is because one might want to visit them is extremely strange. There are all manner of sources on them across a range of disciplines (history, public health, sociology, just for a start) - and for good reason. It clearly needs improved sourcing and pruning (some of the ones in areas I'm familiar with are rubbish), and the legal status is largely a matter for other articles, but as ever, AfD is not cleanup. It could do with some more general improvement as well - many of these places need context (for example, St Kilda, Victoria and Hay Street, Kalgoorlie are red light districts in very different ways) and it sorely needs a "historic" section for the many notable districts that once were but are no longer. The suggestion of List of places where prostitution has occurred is one of the funniest suggestions I've ever seen on AfD, considering that you'd have to list most places on earth. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 23:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Passes WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN. It's an odd one, but is guidelines-compliant. Hog Farm ( talk) 00:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Red-light districts are culturally notable and extensively documented. Meets notability for lists. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 11:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep The argument here for deletion seems floored. The list is well sourced it seems, the prose at the beginning of the article should be expanded on in my opinion. Govvy ( talk) 12:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Govvy: Right now the article is a “List of places where prostitution has occurred” (which - as The Drover's Wife has intimated - is a rather absurd, probably limitless, inclusion criteria). – xeno ^talk 12:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  I really don't see why you think this list is absurd, Red-Light district has become more generic in it's use. I actually think the list could be shaved down a bit. The lack of prose, commentary, history as to why each location should be included in the list worries me a bit. This should be about locations where prostitution has hand a permanent home. Govvy ( talk) 14:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Govvy: That...would not be the shorter list you think it is. Xeno: I think that's quite an exaggeration about the list as it stands (as John notes in his review below). It just needs a solid review for sourcing, and having more closely reviewed the ones for my area, I would add to my above comment that I think there probably needs to be a clearer definition of "red light district". (There's several that I would call questionably sourced to publications from regulators/lobby groups that give figures for alleged street-based sex work in areas that aren't necessarily known for it). The Drover's Wife ( talk) 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Having gone through the first two sections of the article, Africa & Asia (about 30% of the article), reference by reference, the majority use the term "red-light district" within the reference. Based on this, the nominator's "most of the entries on this list" seems an overstatement. Where the references did not specifically mention red-light district I have in most cases added additional references that do use that terminology. I will continue through the article, so the question of is calling an "area of prostitution" a "red-light district" WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS becomes irrelevant. Similarly the "List of places where prostitution has occurred" rather than "List of red-light districts" issue is resolved. -- John B123 ( talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notable topic; we can have a list of these. Is nominator aware of wp:CLNT? And per John B123, others. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Issue of clear focus upon officially-declared red light districts (common in U.S. history as matter of governments' zoning/planning for restricting adult-themed businesses) vs. broader definition to include any/all locations of prostitution, is a matter for editing and discussion at Talk page, not AFD. -- Doncram ( talk) 17:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, meets WP:LISTN, numerous books that cover this as a group including: Red light districts of the world, Red light city, For business and pleasure : red-light districts and the regulation of vice in the United States, 1890-1933. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep list is discriminate/clearly meets WP:LISTN, and WP:NOTTRAVEL isn't violated at all as this isn't presented anything close to a travel guide would be. Cleanup can happen on the page d'talk SportingFlyer T· C 02:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. , but it seems to be essential to make a distinction between current and historical. The time span supported by the references must be given. (There are remarkable number of areas in NYC --and presumably in other cities as well--that could reasonably have listed here at one time or another in the past few centuries, and are very different today; there are probably some where the designation would more or less continually apply. This is one of the instances where some information in addition to the mere listing is necessary even in a list. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• This is really important and one of the first things that needs to happen in any cleanup. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 04:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Red light areas are culturally notable and can be informative in many ways, for example NGOs. However this article needs a collabortive effort to keep the information appropriate. The9Man | ( talk) 06:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly notable topic. Discriminate, referenced list. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. An important topic for the sex work task force. The sources demonstrate that it is WP:NOTABLE. It does not have the level of detail to violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. -- Polly Tunnel ( talk) 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Andreas Knappe

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

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

Looks to have never actually played a pro game. Geschichte ( talk) 15:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including some national media outlets. Significant coverage includes (1) " Danish Archer Becomes Football Star", Associated Press (Colorado newspaper), 8/9/15 (same story published in multiple newspapers across the country, including Minnesota, Nebraska, Maryland, Illinois, Texas, and Massachusetts); (2) " Archer leaves Denmark, becomes American football star", Sports Illustrated, 8/8/15; (3) " Andreas Knappe grew up a Redskins fan in Denmark. Now he’s on the team’s practice squad", The Washington Post, 10/19/17; (4) " Falcons’ Andreas Knappe dreamed of being an Olympic archer", Atlanta Journal Constitution, 5/12/17; (5) " The Mighty Thor: UConn dreamed big on six-foot-nine archer from Denmark", TheAmerican.org, 8/18/15 (arguably not independent), (6) " Knappe Still Adjusting to Football", NBC Connecticut, 3/27/13, (7) " It’s a brave new world for UConn lineman Andreas Knappe", New Haven Register, 8/29/15; (8) " Danish Tackle Draws A Crowd", The Hartford Courant, 8/12/12, (9) Nordic Track, The Hartford Courant, 9/3/15, and (10) Huskies May Get Knappe Sacks, The Hartford Courant, 3/27/13. There are also multiple articles in Danish media but I don't speak the language and can't evaluate the sources. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. In addition, he very likely meets WP:NCOLLATH #3 as well due to the Sports Illustrated feature article Cbl62 found. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 15:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Definitely meets GNG, per above. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 22:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• keep passes WP:GNG without any professional notoriety.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep It seems pretty clear that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 03:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep Nominator withdrawn (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{( talk • contribs)} 20:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Oceanic zone

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

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

Another page referring to same topic with more appropriate and notable title already exists (see Pelagic zone) DishitaBhowmik 15:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I have resarched on this topic and various sources suggest that Oceanic zone is an indicative and informal term for Pelagic zone. Even their definitions on their respective pages suggest so. Here are a few references to validate my point. reply

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Also notice how the article also shows the same sub-divisions as is usually the Pelagic zone divided into i.e. Epipelagic, Mesopelagic, Bathypelagic and Abyssopelagic. I was going to suggest that the page be merged. However, the content is nearly same as what exists on the other page. So I think that it can be safely deleted without any loss of information.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. DishitaBhowmik 15:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DishitaBhowmik 15:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• I believe that the nominator is referring to our article on the pelagic zone. The sources that I can find, such as [21] and [22], do not treat this as a synomym, but say that the oceanic zone is a subset of the pelagic zone. Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Certainly Phil Bridger, but the oceanic zone constitutes most of the pelagic zone and the two are treated as synonymous unless at beginner level. This is due the fact that neritic zone is highly rich in biodiversity and repesents very less of it. Also it greatly differs from the rest of pelagic zone. Thus, it studied as a separate subject of study and interpretation of oceanic zone almost merges with the Pelagic zone.

This article may also be redirected to the Pelagic zone article, which can be edited to tell readers about the slight difference between the two. DishitaBhowmik 16:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - "Oceanic zone" refers to the open ocean beyond the continental shelf; it refers to offshore waters, in contrast to inshore waters. "Pelagic zone" refers to the body of water that stretches between the ocean surface and the ocean bottom; it refers to the open and free waters in the body of the sea that are not restricted by being close to some boundary, like rocks or the seafloor or the surface. The two concepts are fundamentally different, though they do have a tendency to get mixed up. For example, instead of saying as I just did, that the pelagic zone "refers to open water..." I could equally have said that the pelagic zone "refers to open ocean...". And then it might seem as though I am talking about the oceanic zone. But the "oceanic zone" is not the same as the ocean, is a more specific term than the ocean. I can see why Dishita is finding this confusing, so I will rewrite, in due course, part of the oceanic zone article to provide some clarification. – Epipelagic ( talk) 09:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Epipelagic. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 11:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Thanks Epipelagic! I think now that it would be better not to delete the article. However it needs major rewording and expansion. We can close the discussion now. DishitaBhowmik 15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Draftify. As pointed out, whether we should have an article does not necessarily fit with the state of the current article. Returning to draft. Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Jyoti Pandya

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

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not demonstrated as having enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. As always, every mayor of every city is not handed an automatic notability freebie just because she exists -- making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires writing a substantive article, referenced to a lot of media coverage, about her political importance. Just writing "she exists, the end", and sourcing it to a single news article verifying her initial selection as mayor, is not enough to make a mayor notable all by itself. Bearcat ( talk) 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Rajendrababu is another AfD on mayor being discussed.
• Delete never won any major election hence fails WP:NPOL no major accomplishments to merit an article. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 15:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, even the one source cited for the article's one sentence shows significant secondary coverage. Which is scarcely surprising, since we are talking about the mayor of a city of more than 2 million people. Even if one discounts the coverage of her actions as mayor for some reason (as some have attempted to interpret the GNG in these cases), she has also received coverage outside of that role in multiple sources, having been at the center of at least one major controversy: [23], [24]. Nom's suggested requirement of "a lot of media coverage about her political importance" lacks any discernible support in policy. No WP:BLP issue is apparent in the article, and the nom has not indicated any. -- Visviva ( talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Just noting that the source cited for the article has only 2 lines about the subject and I quote "A very active party worker and functionary, this is her first term as a councillor. Her education, personality and organisational skills were seen as major positives." This is not what we call significant coverage. DBig Xrayᗙ 20:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The nominator is correct about how mayoral notability works. It is not established by writing "she exists, the end" and single-sourcing her existence to a single news article about her initial election or selection as mayor — every mayor of every single city town or village on the entire planet can always single-source the fact that they exist or existed as a mayor, so if that were how it worked then we'd always have to keep an article about everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere. But we do not accept all mayors of all places as being "inherently" notable just because they exist as a mayor — making a mayor notable enough for an article most certainly does require the ability to write much more than just one sentence about her existence, and to cite much more than just one source to support it. Even just trying to claim that she passed WP:GNG would still require quite a bit more than just one source. Bearcat ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Mayor of a city with more than 1 million people. Further, there are likely to be significantly more sources in Gujarati, a totally different script. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 12:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Sources have to be shown to exist, not just presumed to probably exist, before the prospect of improved sourcing becomes a valid argument against deletion. Bearcat ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Just being the mayor of a city is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 14:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Based on past precedent, being the mayor of a large city of almost 2 million residents is notable. If consensus has changed, please ping me. Bearian ( talk) 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

There is no consensus that any size of city confers its mayors with a free exemption from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. Mayoral notability always lives or dies on the quality and depth and range of the sources the person can show to support an article with, and never just on the population of the city itself. Bearcat ( talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per WP:GNG and WP:RS. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, mayors are not necessarily notable. In her case, there isn't much other than her election as mayor from secondary sources. According to the The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the post of mayor in any city of erstwhile Bombay State would be ceremonial in nature which according to www.gujarat.gov.in is applicable in Gujarat currently. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Junaid Azim Mattu

Junaid Azim Mattu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The four sources presented in the article is insufficient to pass our notability guidelines. The article fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. He is the mayor of a city with 1,800,000 people, and that city is capital of the territory. The city he is mayor should fall under "regional prominence" stated in POLOUTCOMES. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Iamreallygoodatcheckers. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 12:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Popularly elected mayor of Srinagar. The sources already existing in the article appear sufficient to write a more that "he exists" article about the subject. Passes WP:NPOL. -- Enos733 ( talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Mayor of a major city. Enough to pass WP:NPOL. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 21:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per past precedent. We almost always keep the popularly-elected mayors of large cities, especially ones that are regionally important and having millions of residents. This compares, to a mayor elected by the city council of a city of 1/4 million residents, which would not be automatically notable. I would also argue that Srinagar is important as a major pilgrimage site of several religions, even though it's not as well known in the United States. Bearian ( talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Sanjay Chauhan (politician)

Sanjay Chauhan (politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The first source is self published. Last one is about his sworning (both are dead). These are not enough for passing him WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Shimla is a large enough city that a substantive and well sourced article about a mayor could potentially be kept, but this article is nowhere near substantive or well-sourced enough to pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL. Mayor of the largest and capital city of an Indian state, which falls under "regional prominence." Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 06:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I created this page as I believe this qualifies under WP:NPOL. He was mayor of an Indian state capital for five years. Also he is the first mayor of Shimla belonging to the political party CPI(M), which has historical significance as well. Aravind V R ( talk) 04:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Mayor of the capital city and largest city within the Himachal Pradesh state. I would recommend adding more sources and expanding the article's content. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 21:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per past precedent. Mayors of large, historical, capital cities are almost always kept. Shimla was the declared seasonal capital of the Indian Empire under the Raj, and remains a state capital. Bearian ( talk) 17:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Telecommunications tower

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

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

This article has multiple issues and should be redirected to Radio masts and towers which covers the same material in greater depth. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nom following advice below. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 10:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CptViraj ( 📧) 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Hmm, why is this being brought to AfD? Redirect, not deletion, is being proposed. Redirect seems pretty reasonable. Me, I would boldly redirect and withdraw the AfD to save other editors the time and effort. Just a thought. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per nom. Hog Farm ( talk) 00:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep (procedural), wrong forum, nominator should have followed the guidelines at WP:REDIRECT. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 00:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

RxAll Inc.

RxAll Inc. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Organization does not satisfy WP:NCORP & invariably has no WP:CORPDEPTH. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep there is plenty of coverage in reputable publications, and in considerable depth. The article needs a lot of attention but the company is clearly notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Rathfelder: where did you find depth of coverage? These look like routine funding announcements by the titles. - Bri.public ( talk) 22:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• I think Chemistry World is a respectable source. I've never heard of Sahara Reporters before, but it seems independent and the article is in considerable depth. It's made the Guardian, though not in much depth. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, there is sufficient coverage to establish notability as provided in some of the sources including one mentioned above and this and this. Besides, this is one of those subjects in my opinion that do great work and deserves a stand-alone especially in view of the fact that many greedy western companies and others are using Africa as a dumping ground or guinea pigs to send their dangerous drugs to, which they would not dare sell in the west—in fear of being find or jailed. It would help many of our readers who do not have the luxury. I would rather read an article about this organization than a pretty western bimbo famous for only showing their boops. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 23:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Important US-Africa medical company. Some coverage from around the globe: [25] [26] [27] [28].-- Chuka Chief ( talk) 18:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Regarding to what Senegambianamestudy and Chuka Chief has given, stated and cited, It stand a chance to stay in Wikipedia, the article has a story to tell. An@ss_koko ^{(speak) (war)} 20:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Labrador Husky

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

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

Fails GNG, likely a little WP:TOOSOON. None of the cited sources are RS, a search of Google reveals nothing attributable. Cavalryman ( talk) 10:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. None of the cited sources are reliable. The only reliable source that I could find was "Labrador Huskies in the Falkland Islands Dependencies and Antarctica", Dickinson 2015, who discusses use of the huskies from Labrador and refers to them as the Labrador husky. Therefore fails GNG. William Harris talk 11:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Labrador. A perfectly plausible search term. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 12:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Why would you redirect a husky to a region of Canada? William Harris talk 11:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  I agree with William Harris, redirecting this article to Labrador (a geographic and cultural region within the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador) is inappropriate. Cavalryman ( talk) 04:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC). reply

• Keep. The sources are there, and I've seen no explanation as to why they are unreliable. There is a complaint in Talk that they are not peer reviewed, which makes little sense because most cites are not. Additional complaints about the article from the same person claim that the breed is not established because it is similar to other breeds in appearance and whole genome sequencing hasn't been provided. This is again odd as this is the case for the vast majority of articles here on various dog breeds. Finally the person complains about grammatical errors present in the article (which they apparently didn't fix) and presents some uncited personal research to advocate for removal. I think that the case to remove is very poorly established. Philip72 ( talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Hello Philip72 ( talk), can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:RS; self published websites, websites comprised of user generated content and websites that write a disclaimer specifically stating they do not warrant the accuracy of any information they have published do not fall within the scope of acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 04:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC). reply

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The AKC website does not even mention them in the linked page. The other sources appear to be self-published. Peer-review papers are not required for "pop-culture" types of articles; I'm just looking for textbooks, reputable website, and news articles at a minimum. Todays Doggy magazine is not a reliable source. I found not a single newspaper article about this breed, and many books talk about mixed breed puppies. Bearian ( talk) 17:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NFT, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, etc. This is utterly unverifiable, a promotion piece (which appears to have cribbed liberally from other husky-related material on WP) for an effort to establish a breed that is not recognized by a single international or national kennel club/breed registry, and which has no coverage anywhere at all (not even tertiary sources like breed encyclopedias) beyond Web forums and self-published blogs by people with no real-world reputability as subject-matter experts (other than an alleged mention at WebMD, but that constitutes WP:UGC material anyway, I think). Do not redirect to Labrador, since an alleged dog breed has nothing to with a region of Canada in the abstract. Do not redirect to and summarize at Husky unless at least a couple of independent and actually secondary and reliable sources can confirm this isn't either just made up or just some "backyard breeder" experiment. WP has absolutely no reason to cover every single little population of dogs that someone made up a name for. Most attempts at breed establishment fail.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No attempts have been made to refute the arguments that this individual is insufficiently notable based on works and coverage, and that the article appears to struggle to maintain a neutral point of view. ~ mazca ^talk 00:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Rajath Ravishankar

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and not meeting with WP:NPOV. The article has been written in advertising manner and lacks tone. The subject is about the director who has only directed one film in his career and it is a kind of WP:TOOSOON. The article also has bare urls to be refilled. Abishe ( talk) 07:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 07:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 07:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. We are not Advertapedia. -- Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 13:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. All participants have found a lack of reliable sources leading to insufficient evidence of notability. ~ mazca ^talk 23:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Haitian Stock Exchange

Haitian Stock Exchange (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not sure this passes the WP:NOTABILITY threshold; nearly all the material is cited from a website of the same name. There seems to be very, very little information relating to this in WP:RS, and all I can really find in mentions in passing such as this (quote: "Between 2007 and 2010, Jean was president of YMCA-Haiti. He’s a founding member of the Haitian Stock Exchange and an advocate of tourism promotion") and this mention in passing right at the bottom of this article (quote: "His father is a founder of the Haitian Stock Exchange in Port-au-Prince.").

Although the website shows today's date, the copyright notices on the website suggest that it hasn't been updated since 2009, which seems unusual for an active enterprise. I note also that the banner GIF on the http://www.haitianstockexchange.com website currently seems to be served from a URL blacklisted by my ISP's content filter, although this doesn't necessarily mean anything, as this could be a false positive.

One page on the website shows a PDF of what appears to be a scanned page from Le Moniteur, the official gazette of the Republic of Haiti, suggesting that the company is actually called the Société Haïtienne de Valeurs Mobilières ("Haitian Securities Company"), which also matches text on the website. There seem to be a number of French-language hits on this, but I haven't dug any deeper than that -- but a newspaper search for the term in French comes up with nothing.

In the absence of definitive evidence of notability, I suggest we delete this article until better evidence is available.

-- The Anome ( talk) 09:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless we can add reliable citations and remove the promotional tone. Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 03:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete no evidence of actual sources that would meet requirements to demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Service Dogs of America

Service Dogs of America (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails GNG, the article is completely unsourced. A search of Google reveals nothing attributable, just a couple of non-RS websites. Cavalryman ( talk) 09:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The text appears to have been provided by the Central Florida SDA site link at the bottom of the article. Its "news" page has not been updated since February 26, 2011, and the 2 connected websites now host other organisations that have no relationship with SDA. The SDA activity appears to be defunct, with no RS and therefore fails GNG. William Harris talk 12:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:ITEXISTS. While the org. doesn't appear to be completely defunct (there's passing mention in one Forbes article recently [29]), I can't find any in-depth material in secondary sources about it. Almost all news search hits for the phrase actually bring up two better-known organizations, Autism Service Dogs of America and Freedom Service Dogs of America.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 00:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Gli anni struggenti

Gli anni struggenti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 09:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Has a review in Variety, which I added. Several mentions of the movie leading up to its premiere too. It's a safe bet that there is Italian language coverage of an Italian film that was big enough to be reviewed in that publication--though it would be better if a source from a contemporary Italian publication could be found. -- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 10:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's notable enough. There's hits in google books with Italian language info on them but can't access them. Surely plenty of newspapers in Italy as well offline. Stars one of Italy's top actors Gabriele Ferzetti.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per the Variety review and reliable book sources, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw nomination per the insightful comments above. Thanks to all, Boleyn ( talk) 20:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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