WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2020 FEBRUARY 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 February	18 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hellbillys

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

Purely self promotional. No reliable sources. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 23:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Love their name, but despite a long existence they have no significant and reliable media coverage to satisfy the requirements at WP:NBAND. Note that they have a basic AllMusic entry but with no biography and just one single-paragraph review for one of their albums. Otherwise all that can be found are the typical retail/streaming sites and self-promotional efforts. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 13:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, Not enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, Actually to me also it looks promotional Alex-h ( talk) 16:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete The band exists for that many years and still did not manage to get significant coverage in WP:RS? It's not notable then. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 12:02, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Cryovac GmbH

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

Unsourced. There seems to be no significant coverage. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 23:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete There don't seem to be any sources. I couldn't find anything. Tried searching in German too. Search is complicated a bit by the fact that Cryovac is also a brand of food packaging owned by Sealed Air. Vexations ( talk) 23:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. A reasonable number of these GmbH pages are too self-promotional and non-notable. Dorama285 00:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. I agree with Vexations above, so barring any available quality sourcing that we've missed, the company is non-notable. PK650 ( talk) 22:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, Article is without any sources.I could not find enough coverage, not notable. Alex-h ( talk) 16:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete as we're not a catalog. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: An article with substantial edits by Cryovac and with an advertising tone ("leading supplier", "real advantage", etc.) but absence of sources. Searches are finding distributor listings but not the substantial coverage required for WP:NCORP. AllyD ( talk) 07:29, 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

East Anglia Medieval Fayre

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

All of the sources in the article are merely listings sites, and I cannot find any evidence of notability online other than WP:ROUTINE. Previously nominated for PROD in 2009 and no other major improvements seem to have been made as a result Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, seems to have only occurred a couple of times, 2009 and 2005 maybe? Can barely be Verified. Abductive ( reasoning) 00:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment. Has it just moved and changed its name, one or more times? I just searched on "Medieval Fayre Wimblington" (per article Wimblington was 2019 location), and find a webpage with count-down to the next Fayre, which will be a Viking themed one. Okay, oops, this is apparently in South Africa, but there are just 18 days and some hours until 7 March 2020 event! HERE is "Medieval in the Media" page with the Randburg Sun and The Citizen coverage (maybe not independent, maybe articles were written by the Fayre or participants). This South Africa one seems to be known as "Neigh-Bours Magical Medieval Fayre" or " Magical Medieval Fayre", and may be notable. Anyhow the AFD subject article maybe just needs to be expanded, updated. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment [was "Merge" or "redirect", tentatively.] We should look for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion, and merger/redirect to a list-article might be an option. Note there are few members of Category:Medieval reenactment events (the category on the article now). But there are many in Category:Renaissance fairs, and in the U.S. "Renaissance fair" is the more common term and they are fairly popular and I think noteworthy. List of Renaissance fairs covers multiple events in U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and "Europe", but has no events listed in the United Kingdom at all. I suggest that list-article's title/focus could/should be moved/expanded a bit to cover other Medieval-themed or Viking-themed fairs, and to cover the U.K., and this could be covered there, with or without keeping a separate article about it. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. After renaming and developing what is now List of Renaissance and Medieval fairs, and seeing that its members are fairs that have been held 10 years or more, or otherwise being clearly wikipedia-notable, I now see this East Anglia one as lesser. I expanded the list-article to include a separate section on the United Kingdom, and to expand scope (avoiding false distinction "Renaissance fairs" vs. Other Medieval Fairs), and to include all members of Category:Medieval-themed fairs. I also am adding a section for South Africa and listing the above-mentioned one. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I can't see any evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 12:04, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk ( t 桜 c) 07:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

YouLicense

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

Non notable as only search results are corporate fundraising and press releases — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 22:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. No notable references easily found. Dorama285 14:46, 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 delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Project Zebra

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

Shows no significant news coverage. There are a few results covering their most popular game "FoursqWAR" in niche sources. The article's name seems more notable as a WWII operation and has several other nonnotable uses. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 22:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. There is almost no coverage of the subject in independent, relibale sources. There are some press releases, and I found one very brief mention in a book, [1] and a review of FoursqWAR [2], but nothing in-depth about the company. Vexations ( talk) 23:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Low tier game developer with nothing notable about it. Seems it was created and mainly edited by a single article editor for the purposes of advertising also. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:03, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Elise Allen

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

No independent or significant coverage of works listed, nor any bios or interviews, etc. Does not meet WP:GNG, IMHO. Wanderer0 ( talk) 22:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Middling coverage of her novel Populazzi from 2011 but nothing sig. There's drips of info here and there she's award winning, but IMDb listing shows two nominations, 2011 and 2015. Rdzogschen ( talk) 22:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

delete @ Rdzogschen:Populazzi reviews are all short, and none expand on Allen's bio. Fostrdv ( talk) 23:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:43, 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 delete. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 10:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Dan Li (actor)

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

Not notable. While Li has appeared in several notable films and TV shows, none of their roles appear to be significant, with the potential exception of My Spy Family. However, Li's character only appears to have appeared in 5 episodes out of the 46-episode run. His role on Thomas may become significant, but does not appear to be at the moment. For this reason, Li is not considered to be likely to be notable by WP:NACTOR.

More importantly, Li does not meet the basic biographical notability criteria. The only source I was able to find that was not a press release or trivial mention was this Resonate article, which only talks about Li for one paragraph in a piece purportedly about him. This is well below the required significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 22:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 22:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 22:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete or Incubate - Determining what roles are significant by this subject is ambiguous. That is, to me having multiple episode stints on a show could in itself be considered significant. However, this isn't drawn up by the sources and with the sources provided the subject wholly fails WP:GNG. I think incubate in AfC is another option. However, proper warnings or temp bans would need to be issued to MetaWizz4331 to ensure they discontinue their disruptive editing and moving of the page. Sulfurboy ( talk) 05:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete or Draftify: I agree with the nominator. While the subject has done quite a bit of work over many years, I don't think he quite reaches the notability standards for actors—yet. As the nominator pointed out, the subject's role in Thomas may bring him notability, and for that reason I would recommended that the article be moved to draftspace should the consensus be to delete it. Dflaw4 ( talk) 06:43, 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 delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Cory Briggs

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The article's creator seems to have a close connection with the subject and has failed to keep a neutral point of view. — Μετάknowledge^{discuss/
deeds} 22:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Μετάknowledge^{discuss/
deeds} 22:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates for political office — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this makes no strong claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacy, and is relying on a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and purely local media coverage in his own local area — but people are not automatically exempted from having to pass the subject-specific inclusion test for their occupation just because they've gotten their name into their own local media a handful of times, either. At this level of prominence, he would have to show nationalizing coverage that made him much more special than other as yet non-winning city attorney candidates before he could claim that his media coverage exempted him from having to win the election. Bearcat ( talk) 19:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Candidates don't get articles for only being candidates. Fails WP:NPOL. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 20:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapbox. GDX420 ( talk) 12:45, 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. qedk ( t 桜 c) 07:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Murder of Missy Bevers

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

There does not appear to be continuing coverage in reliable sources, except locally--see Google News results. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep: It is a preety talked about case. When I think of a wiki, I think of a case like this one. 11S117 ( talk) 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete One good source; the rest are Find a Grave and crime forum sites. This is not national news. Nate • ( chatter) 02:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom.-- JBL ( talk) 20:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. A death with no lasting significance, WP:NOTNEWS. Sources are self-published and/or lack reliability. WWGB ( talk) 03:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep I added 2 WP:RS. Per WP:NOTPAPER, there is room for a notable unsolved crime that is still receiving news coverage 3 years after the fact. The case is receiving national attention due to its being publicized over the airwaves, and there is certainly room for WP to WP:ALMANAC this case and thereby possibly help to solve it. StonyBrook ( talk) 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

our role is not to publicize unsolved cases to help solve them--that's the role of newspapers and other media. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nom. Alex-h ( talk) 17:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, routine unsolved murder. Is it awful? Yes. Is it encyclopedic in the sense that WP:N asks for? (That is, has it gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time?) Nope. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk ( t 桜 c) 07:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Technofile

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

Article has been unsourced for years. Unable to find any significant and reliable media coverage to indicate that the show satisfies the notability requirements at WP:RPRGM. All that can be found are the usual promotions and pop culture list sites. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: I barely found anything about the radio show. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:20, 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) 21:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

N. Padmalochanan

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

The only claim is mayor of Kollam which is not enough for her passing notability guideline. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: While it it a large city, this mayor has not been covered in many news sources. It is possible thehindu.com articles have more, but I can't read it and the information here does not qualify.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 23:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NPOL for not winning any major state or national elections. All mayors are not automatically notable. This one lacks significant coverage -- DBig Xrayᗙ 13:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. My understanding of the consensus is that, absent significant coverage, mayors of even medium-sized cities like this subject are not automatically notable. Bearian ( talk) 17:27, 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. qedk ( t 桜 c) 07:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Junior 4

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

This stub survived a deletion discussion in 2008 but it hasn’t really gone anywhere since then. The topic is a term in real estate jargon but I don’t see many sources using it. It may be a dictionary definition but it doesn’t seem notable to me. Mccapra ( talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 17:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete - This definitely exists as an actual real estate term, but the source currently in the article is really the only one that does anything more than just define it. There really is not enough that would allow this to be anything more than this stub. But, if anyone can suggest a good place where this could potentially be merged or redirected, I would probably be fine with that. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete as a dicdef. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, it could be merged somewhere, but don't see a good target. Renata ( talk) 06:28, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk ( t 桜 c) 07:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Sultan Ahmed Khan Tarin

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

Fails WP:NPOL. No significant coverage. Störm (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 18:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Paatti

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

Unknown film with poor sources. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. DragoMynaa ( talk) 03:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa ( talk) 03:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa ( talk) 03:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: I can't find any English sources, but if someone who speaks the language could give feedback about the sources in the article, I'd feel more comfortable providing a vote. Dflaw4 ( talk) 06:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment:@ Dflaw4: The sources in the article - official website, Indiaglitz, Sify are all film related websites and are not notable. Times of India and The Hindu are notable examples for good websites. -- DragoMynaa

Thank you, DragoMynaa. The sources contained in the article aren't very good, there's no doubt about that. Dflaw4 ( talk) 03:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete: Given that I don't feel too well-placed to judge this article as regards notability, I'm giving it a tentative "Weak Delete". To me, the film doesn't appear notable, and I've struggled to find any sources, especially given how common the word "Paatti" is in online searches. I'd be more than willing to take on the thoughts of other editors, but for now I think a "Weak Delete" vote is fair. Dflaw4 ( talk) 03:21, 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. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Eggs Beauregard

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

Per WP:MERGEREASON bullet points 3 and 4. As the article is "similar to Eggs Benedict", it should be merged with that article just like all other variants of that dish. Also, it would greatly benefit from the context in Eggs Benedict. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 20:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 20:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The content in this article can't merge to Eggs Benedict article. I haven't found any reliable sources so far that would support this. I've removed the line causing the confusion from the article. The Bloomsbury book explains that the term is used for two different dishes. Hickoryglaze ( talk) 20:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep: I think I agree with Hickoryglaze here. This seems to be a distinct dish, with it's own variations, and reliable sourcing to support it. I could see a "See also" entry on Eggs Benedict maybe being appropriate, though. Waggie ( talk) 05:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Waggie: Which subject are you advocating keeping? Unless many of the sources are talking about both, we have two subjects here, which shouldn't be covered in one article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Rhododendrites, I'm advocating keeping Eggs Beauregard as a separate article (hence the keep vote, rather than a merge vote). There's reliable sourcing that discusses Eggs Beauregard independently of Eggs Benedict. Perhaps not the best example, but Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet are both variants/successors to Ethernet, and have standalone (albeit problematic) articles as there is reliable sourcing that discusses them independently - would you advocate merging these back into Ethernet? Waggie ( talk) 21:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Right, but which eggs beauregard? The article starts "Eggs Beauregard is an American term that is used for two egg dishes." Unless the sources predominantly talk about it being two dishes (and based on what I'm seeing, they don't), we should not have an article about two subjects. If we have two albums with the title "Greatest Hits", we don't keep it because both of them together return enough sources for notability -- we need to split it up and determine which is notable. If one is a variant on the other, we need sources to say that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

It seems kind of silly to me to try and narrow down the article to only one particular recipe for Eggs Beauregard. It's a name that's gained attention WP:SIGCOV, and they're related dishes. That's my two cents. It's OK to disagree. :) Waggie ( talk) 02:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

It's not a different recipe; it's a different subject. That's why the article says at the very start that it's an article about two subjects by the same name. They are both eggs, yes. Unless we're writing an article about a word itself, it's a WP:DICDEF (and WP:NOR) problem to write about two subjects just because they have the same name unless sources explicitly cover them together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

From DICDEF: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns." (emphasis added) - I think that the article covers more than linguistic concerns and they are related by having the same name. Either way, I think it's time for us to leave the discussion to others. Best wishes, Waggie ( talk) 04:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge selectively with eggs benedict. Among the high quality sources I'm seeing, there's a clear connection with the other topic. E.g. the cited NY Times article: "Eggs Beauregard is a twist on the familiar Eggs Benedict" and Houstonia: "Eggs Benedict, southern style." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I strongly prefer deletion to merging. Your logic is backwards, we can't merge an ambiguous term without explaining the ambiguity and it doesn't belong in the Eggs Benedict article. A passing comment in the NY Times is not enough to merge these articles. I would object strongly to my content being used this way I will object to the addition at the Eggs Benedict article as well. Hickoryglaze ( talk) 01:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

We have sources that would clearly justify inclusion in the benedict article, so if it's deleted from here it would obviously be redirected where it's mentioned elsewhere. To the extent this is about two different subjects and one of them isn't necessarily considered a benedict, that wouldn't be merged (hence "selectively"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

'especially without the input of editors at that article who should have been given a chance to comment before a complicated "selective merger" was forced on them. (I am reluctant to outright support deletion as I think Hickoryglaze is most likely frustrated here, but I support their not wanting to circumvent the usual talk page discussion that should take place before mergers, especially a selective one that raise the possibly that inappropriate content will be pushed into the article.) It's not what AfD is for. Dartslilly ( talk) 01:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 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 delete. While not a strong consensus there does appear to be a consensus that the available sources do not satisfy our notability requirements. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Mouthwash (band)

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

Lots of hits when searching but none come under WP:RS, so cannot be notable under WP guidelines. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

~~Weak Keep~~as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here and a staff album review there as well which is usually indicative that there are more sources. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak delete. After several searches, I couldn't find much besides the Allmusic bio and review. While these are perfectly valid sources, it doesn't look like any criterion of WP:NMUSIC is satisfied here. -- Michig ( talk) 09:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep moving to full keep as managed to find some extra sources Huddersfield Examiner, Punk News, Punktastic, Music News, Punk News so that WP:GNG is passed imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Week Delete - This "weak" vote surely isn't helping with the consensus process, but I must disagree with my longtime colleague Atlantic306 above. Those are indeed viable sources but I contend that each story is a minor introduction or brief review and I don't think they add up to enough significant and non-trivial coverage. The AllMusic bio helps their case, but beyond the sources listed by Atlantic306, I can find nothing beyond the typical retail/streaming sites and social media. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

V (programming language)

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG. Of the provided sources, only two even have the pretense of independence: Hackaday and Packt Hub. Hackaday is apparently a blog and is thus assumed to not be reliable (see also this RSN discussion), whereas the content of the Packt Hub piece does not inspire confidence. Searching online, I wasn't able to find anything in internet or Scholar searches, although it's not impossible that I missed something due to the subject's minimalist name. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't know how I missed the previous nomination. I supposed I'll see if there's been more news since then. I do believe the language is more than a simple toy language though, it has at least received some form of coverage and a very popular github project with committed developers. Tiraboschi ( talk) 05:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm going to abstain from voting as I am the person who approved this article out of AfD. Admittedly, upon re-review, approving this article was likely a mistake. User:Rosguill did a much better job than I on the deep dive of looking at the sources. Part of this I'd like to attribute to me shaking off rust of taking a few years off from AfC. Hopefully this can fall under WP:PNJCS or maybe User:Tiraboschi will be able to come up with at least one solid source. Cheers. Sulfurboy ( talk) 06:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Caution to those searching for reliable sources: There is a notable Vlang language [3] that has received academic interest as a verification language [4] [5] [6], however that language is not the V/Vlang described in this article. This article describes the language at vlang.io, which is a different language and has received very little attention, and fails on notability grounds. No one has even added it to List of programming languages by type. -- Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 15:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. The sources in the article are sub-standard, and my own searching (admittedly, only a cursory look) didn't show up anything better. I wouldn't be opposed to moving this back to draft space, but I honestly think all that would happen there is it would languish until the inevitable WP:G13, so I can't really recommend it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Why is this page considered for deletion? The language is being used and recently became one of the officially recognised language by Github. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.73.178 ( talk) 22:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

It has been nominated because the nominator does not think it holds up to our notability guideline (read more here: WP:GNG). In short, we require substantial coverage in reliable sources for a subject to have an article on wikipedia. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Currently the sources presented do not hold up to WP:GNG. I found two more, but they are extremely lightweight ( [7], [8]). Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:41, 26 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Joseph Belibi

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY (if he even exists). None of his alleged caps and goals supported by any sources. Player not found in any database website that's considered reliable (Soccerway, etc). Refunded by original creator after PROD delete. ---- BlameRuiner ( talk) 19:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
I found this article that mentions an 18 year old player agent who supposedly orchestrated the Belibi transfer from Auxerre to Brommapojkarna. So the player might have existed as a youth prospect once, but fails WP:V in that no playing coverage can be found. I am not a Belibier just yet. Geschichte ( talk) 08:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per notability concerns - nothing in GNews too. Note that his article was moved through PROD before, and was restored when the article creator asked for it back recently. -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 08:23, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

K. P. Kurup

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

Municipal chairman is not a notable position Failed to pass WP:NPOL WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. My understanding of the consensus is that, absent significant coverage, mayors of even medium-sized cities like this subject are not automatically notable. Bearian ( talk) 17:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Per WP:POLITICIAN. Mayors don't get article just because they exist, they need to have done something more significant. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 19:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not meeting the requirements of WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. - The9Man | ( talk) 13:28, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Andrey Zadachin

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

Biography of what appears to be a non-notable marketer/journalist. Sources all appear to be either author bios on various websites (self-published, I think), articles written by the subject, YouTube video clips where he is interviewed briefly, and one passing mention. Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, non-notable journalist. -- Yakudza ( talk) 01:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, as the author of a song by Philipp Kirkorov - one of the famous artists of Russia. This meets the criteria WP:AUTHOR. 80.79.114.172 ( talk) 12:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
- The relevant portion of that policy is The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. A lyricist for a single song (which I note does not have its own article) by a notable performer would not usually qualify. If you have sourcing to show that it does qualify, please present it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete if the song is not notable, it does not make its lyricist notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per John Pack Lambert. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:21, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

M. C. Josephine

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Failed to pass WP:POLITICIAN Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep She passes WP:NPOL due to her holding a major public post, being the chief of Kerala Women's Commission. [9] [10] [11] We also have articles on other WC chiefs e.g. Swati Maliwal. and other women's rights activists. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep She passes our notability criteria. She is the chairperson of Kerala Women's Commission. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 03:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep passes WP:NPOL. Idolmm ( talk) 17:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. My understanding of the consensus is that state commissioners are considered notable. Bearian ( talk) 17:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Josephine holds a notable post. Passes WP:GNG. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep WP:BEFORE? AfD is not cleanup.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep not a clean-up. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:08, 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) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Puthalath Dinesan

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

Does Not meet WP:GNG Failed to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Serving as a political secretary to the chief minister is not considered as a notable position in my book. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 21:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, due to lack of election victory or notable public post -- DBig Xrayᗙ 10:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete The article fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 14:19, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 07:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

V. V. Dakshinamoorthi

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

~~Does Not meet WP:GNG~~ Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep, easily passes WP:NPOL. Former member and chief whip in the Legislative Assembly of Kerala.^[1] Tayi Arajakate ( talk) 19:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

^ https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kozhikode/CPIM-leader-Dakshinamoorthy-dead/article14617671.ece

Speedy Keep. Per above. This individual served in the state legislature and was also chief whip. Enough to satisfy the criteria of WP:NPOL. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 21:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speeedy Keep Per above. We consider MLAs are notable. Here he is chief whip. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 06:49, 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) b uidh e 00:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Age appropriateness

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

This is an essay rather than an article - difficult one to call but I feel it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and has been tagged as such for 4 years. Boleyn ( talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect - perhaps redirect to Suitable age and discretion although that page also has some problems too. I can't find a better target, although there are a few other possibilities. It seems to me that this should really be part of a larger article about considerations of stages of maturity. I believe that is how Britannica treats it. It is a little more than a WP:DICTDEF, but I don't think this qualifies for an article of its own under WP:WORDISSUBJECT. A merge with Suitable age and discretion would also be possible, but here the poor state of this article mitigates against a merge. The content is not in a fit state to do so, thus redirect would be better. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 18:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep: Ratings systems are widespread in practice and frequently documented and "age appropriateness" is often the only or primary factor considered or described by the rating systems. This article should be kept and filled out with content from articles such as the Canadian Home Video Rating System, the Korea Media Rating Board, Motion Picture Association of America film rating system, Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, the Office of Film and Literature Classification (New Zealand), British Board of Film Classification, the Australian Classification Board, and the Eirin as well as the specific articles about specific age based ratings such as R18 (British Board of Film Classification) (these articles where not in their current form when the article under discussion was created; the " Canadian Home Video Rating System" article, for instance, had no citations as of August 14, 2007‎). Hyacinth ( talk) 02:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: If the article read like a very short essay, what was the presumed thesis which the essay was attempting to prove? Hyacinth ( talk) 03:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep- this is a concept used in education and film ratings, rather than suitable age and discretion, which is used in law; they are not exactly the same concept. Tone can be fixed outside of AfD with normal editing. Bearian ( talk) 17:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Subject of extensive scholarly analysis (> 12000 Google Scholar hits, many of which appear to involve detailed and substantive analysis of the concept). To be sure, the state of this article not great. In that respect, it's symptomatic of the pathetic state of Wikipedia's coverage of education (and the "soft" social sciences in general), which of course is the result of Wikipedia's unfortunate success in driving away so many good-faith content creators away. (Another factor is, of course, how badly we handle these fields in which concepts, terms and definitions are themselves in constant dispute, in ways that don't allow one to sort coverage neatly into piles marked "concept" and "word" as guidelines like WP:WORDISSUBJECT presume -- a failing that is both a cause and effect of the lack of knowledgeable editors in these fields -- but probably not directly applicable here, since there seems to be plenty of Wikipedia-friendly scholarship available.) It's certainly possible that in the future when Wikipedia's coverage has become less pathetic, a consensus might be reached through the wiki process to address this subject under some broader topic within the field of education. But in the meantime, putting articles up for deletion because they aren't already good enough isn't going to improve things, and is not an appropriate use of the deletion process. -- Visviva ( talk) 18:49, 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 delete. My evaluation is is that BLP1E sufficiently applies and that it is in the interest of the project to expedite the result. El_C 18:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Kenneth John Freeman

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

This person is known only for his crimes, but these don't meet the bar for notability per WP:CRIME. He's just a run-of-the-mill criminal who tried (and failed) to avoid being held to account for his crimes and that's not enough to get him an article. Neiltonks ( talk) 16:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks ( talk) 16:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Neiltonks ( talk) 16:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. And then burn the computer used to delete it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment: WP:CRIME states: "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". There is encyclopedic material sources from multiple reliable sources here, so what existing article do you feel this content could be incorporated into? Waggie ( talk) 16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per BLP1E and common sense: we have here a biography of a person notable only for a horrific crime; the article was created to celebrate the crime and further victimize the victim. I would support an IAR immediate deletion. — JBL ( talk) 19:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment. I'm not convinced that WP:BLP1E applies here. Specifically, I'm not convinced that the subject of the article meets the second criterion, "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual," given the coverage on America's Most Wanted. The same goes for WP:CRIME, the AMW strikes me as satisfying "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role".

That being said, I find JBL's appeal to WP:IAR rather compelling. I do not like having this article on Wikipedia, and while the victim has been brave in both aiding the perp's capture and securing his imprisonment, I'm not convinced that retaining the article does her any good; and I lean toward deletion in the spirit of WP:do no harm.

I'm conflicted enough that I don't feel I ought to cast a !vote in favor of either keep or delete, but put this out there as something to consider. TJRC ( talk) 00:35, 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 deleted WP:G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 21:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Khunnas

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS  ^💬 16:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS  ^💬 16:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  ^💬 16:14, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 22:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Laxmanbhai Construction

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

Non-notable company. Sourced to LinkedIn, Glassdoor, the company's own website, and a profile in a business magazine that is largely made up of quotes by the company's managing director and shows no depth of analysis. My own searching turns up no more impressive sources. Clear fail of WP:ORG and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Hug^syrup 16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I must have been reviewing this at the same time as Hugsyrup - I spent some time searching for better sourcing, but by the time I concluded that there wasn't anything online, it had already been nominated for deletion. The current sourcing doesn't establish an NCORP pass, and I could find nothing on Google that would satisfy CORPDEPTH - a lot of directory listings, some obvious promo, but nothing independent, secondary and reliable giving significant coverage. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete sourcing falls well short of passing WP:NORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 18:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete G11 Unambiguous advertising: it literally just paraphrases their own website's "about" page, and A7 No indication of importance: every claim in the article is entirely mundane.---- Pontificalibus 17:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete Totally agree with the last person about it meeting G11. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete Totally promotional. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 11:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete for reasons enumerated Dorama285 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Laxmanbhai is a big company, maybe in top-10 of Kenyan construction companies. But if there are no sources, there are no sources.-- Chuka Chief ( talk) 18:27, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Rakesh Tripathi

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as a politician who never contested nor won any national or state level election. Only claim to notability is being a "state" spokesperson (spox) of BJP party, which is not a notable post . As discussed in earlier AfD this post does not merit an article DBig Xrayᗙ 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:GNG BonkHindrance ( talk) 15:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 16:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not meeting the criterias for WP:NPOL or WP:GNG and no significant coverage, hence delete. - The9Man | ( talk) 13:31, 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. There is a consensus among neutral editors that there is not notability for this person. Different Wikipedias have different rules so this person may be notable in other languages. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Valentina Vlasenko (Subbocheva)

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Appears to have been written by family member, only sources are pamyat-naroda documents (but literally millions of soldiers have their documents on that website). Not awarded Hero of Soviet Union or qualifying for notability in any other way that differentiates her from the many other WWII military surgeons. PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 15:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 15:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Unfortunately fails GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Not delete

During WWII (from September 1942 to May 1945), Valentina Vlasenko (Subbocheva) performed several thousand surgical operations, which are confirmed by documents. In reality, she performed much more operations, but many documents were not preserved. She worked not in a hospital, but in a medical battalion, directly near the battlefield, constantly risking her life. The operations she urgently performed in the battlefield saved the lives of at least several hundred soldiers.

There are articles on the WIKI about female snipers who killed more than one hundred Nazis (Nina Lobkovskaya, Ziba Ganiyeva), but there is no less contribution to the victory over fascism made the woman who saved the lives of hundreds of soldiers. Not everything can be compared, but when you read an article about a heroic woman who saved 74 Jewish children (Saide Afirova), it is worth remembering those who saved the lives of hundreds of wounded.

Instead of deleting an article about a front-line surgeon, one should write articles about other doctors who saved the lives of the wounded in the war.-- Ввласенко ( talk) 14:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

But what distinguishes her from the other front-line surgeons who did thousands of surguries? And why are the only sources the pamyat naroda documents (which do no define notability at all)? If she were notable she would have sufficient coverage in secondary sources about the feats credited to her - but the article has ZERO secondary sources. We cannot take the word of uncited documents that are missing that she was a top surgeon - we need secondary sources (like books, newspapers, and magazines) describing her feats. I am also under the impression you are related to her, and writing articles about family members, especially those who are not notable, is highly frowned upon. The reasons Nina Lobkovskaya, Ziba Ganiyeva, and Saide Afirova, are eligigle for articles is not the raw number of lives they saved or Nazis they killed - it's the media coverage they got. Those three all are described sufficiently in secondary sources cited in their articles, unlike Vlasenko. The highest military award she received was the Order of the Patriotic War 2nd class - not even remotely close to meeting notability standards considering literally millions were awarded it as a jubilee medal. Sorry, but your grandmother just doesn't make the cut. If we considered her notable, then we would have to allow literally millions of low-notability insignificant biographies about low-ranking, low-publicity military personell written by grandkids, which would turn Wikipedia into moypolk.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 15:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Since you read in Russian, I use it to express myself more accurately. You can answer me in English.

Вы правы, предположив, что я член семьи Валентины Власенко, она моя мать, что не ограничивает меня в правах участника ВИКИ.

Сначала об источниках.

1.Источники, перечисленные в разделе References, являются официальными документами Красной Армии. Они использованы как первичные источники, именно в них указаны действия Валентины Власенко (Суббочевой), за которые она была награждена.

2.Два печатных источника приведены в списке литературы. Они являются вторичными источниками. В них также описываются действия Валентины Власенко (Суббочевой) во время войны.

3.Ещё два вторичных источника указаны в разделе External links.

Таким образом, есть надёжные первичные источники и есть вторичные источники, в том числе печатные, следовательно, формальные требования выполнены.

Теперь о принципах.

Значимость энциклопедии, как системы знаний в различных отраслях, определяется широтой и надёжностью представленной информации, независимо от её современной публичности. Вы же подчёркиваете, что в ВИКИ должны быть упомянуты только публичные, освещаемые в СМИ люди, и если следовать этому принципу, то информация в ВИКИ, в частности, о людях, окажется вторичной и сиюминутной, следовательно, быстро устаревающей. Такие критерии как ранг наград, стареют очень быстро, а общечеловеческие ценности времени не подвластны. Историческая информация далеко не всегда является популярной, что не уменьшает её содержательности. Часто она оказывается важной с точки зрения сохранения источников, что тоже является одной из целей энциклопедии. Кроме того, принцип минимизации ограничений, используемый в ВИКИ, стоит рассматривать как возможность увеличивать содержание надёжной информации.

Замечу, что упоминание «мойполк» (возможно, «бессмертный полк») неуместно, поскольку к российской пропаганде статью причислить никак нельзя, она представлена только в английской и украинской ВИКИ, но не в русской.-- Ввласенко ( talk) 09:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but she just doesn't meet notability requirements. We can't give every surgeon awarded the Order of the Patriotic War who did a lot of surguries an article. While her feats are impressive they are by no means noteworthy or distinguishing enough for Wikipedia.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 14:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The sourcing doesn't prove that WP:GNG is met and the subject does not meet the standards of WP:SOLDIER. As pointed out above her actions during the war, while certainly something to be proud of, are not particularly distinguishing and Wikipedia is not a place to write memorials to loved ones who have passed. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 01:22, 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) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Sudhir S. Halwasiya

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. The politician has never held an elected office, let alone a notable one. The person neither seems to have any notable mentions from secondary sources with regards to his business career. The only secondary sources available on him either are hard to come by and at best give him a passing mention with regards to him receiving a regional secondary post within his party or about him switching his party once. The citations in the article are also misleading as one Indian Express marked source links to a whole different site altogether, and one Patrika (in Hindi) makes no mention of him at all. Most of the information in the article is unsourced. There is no evidence, that I could find which qualifies him for WP:GNG. It could also be a potential case of WP:PROMO. Tayi Arajakate ( talk) 15:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate ( talk) 15:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate ( talk) 15:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate ( talk) 15:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:NPOL. Article was recently created for WP:PROMO reasons. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Article reads like a promotional piece ( WP:PROMO). Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 21:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. Not meeting WP:NPOL. More of promotional content. The9Man | ( talk) 12:11, 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 redirect to Apocalypse (film series). (non-admin closure) b uidh e 00:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Apocalypse IV: Judgment

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

I can find no coverage in reliable sources for this film. The article is unsourced with an external link to IMDB. The film appears to have been one of those straight-to-DVD films that get little to no coverage. Candidate for redirection to Apocalypse (film series). Hog Farm ( talk) 03:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 03:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 04:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 04:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 14:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Apocalypse (film series), though whether even the series as a whole is notable is debatable, as the series' article cites no sources either. Not a very active user ( talk) 18:32, 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 delete. qedk ( t 桜 c) 07:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Filben, Nevada

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

Move for deletion because of WP:STATION. See Talk:Filben, Nevada. I previously put this article up for WP:PROD, User:Northamerica1000 to a look (thanks!), declined the prod and in their comment wrote "Some source searches are providing evidence that this was formerly a populated place. I recommend initiating a deletion discussion at AfD for wider community input, if deletion is still desired. Also, I did read the information on the talk page." In Talk:Filben, Nevada, I did find one source that mentions Filben as an old mining town, but that source also lists Rio Vista, Nevada, which was recently deleted. There are a couple of other sources (Myrick and Paher), but I don't have copies of those sources. For reference, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorne, Nevada. Kinkaid,_Nevada might also be not notable. Nevada has a many railroad stations that are not notable, it would be helpful to me to get some feedback on whether Filben is notable. Cxbrx ( talk) 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Leaning keep - it was originally known as Junction (good luck searching for that) but a Google Books search brings up a number of potential hits such as "filben"+"nevada"&dq="filben"+"nevada"&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVkIuy9cXnAhUjhuYKHdSgBLQ4KBDoAQgnMAA. Haven't found anything I'd call specifically definitive yet, though, but I don't think this is GNIS spam. SportingFlyer T· C 02:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

leaning delete Digging into GNIS shows that the name "Filben" comes from a 1920-ish map published in Indiana; the map snippet (which is actually showing Southern Pacific Railroad lines, not MoPac) only gives evidence that it is a rail junction. (I have found an SP system map from the 1920s here which also shows Filben as the junction to the branch to Candelaria.) The oldest topo map I've found (from the late 1960s) shows the name "Candelaria Junction" and locates it on the abandoned grade, and looking at aerials you can indeed see the grade and the wye of the junction. What you cannot see is the slightest trace of any buildings, as opposed to Candelaria, Nevada itself, where there are plainly ruins. It's extremely obvious there was never a settlement here; there's no trace of anything except old railroad grade, and everything says that the junction was all that was ever there. We have tended to take isolated rail junctions as non-notable unless something significant happened there, and using it as a reference point for a minor tremblor is really not enough in my opinion. Mangoe ( talk) 03:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 14:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. There is absolutely nothing there on the satellite view. Nothing to suggest this was ever a populated place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete 1967 topo map shows merely a junction at Candelaria Junction, aka Filben per GNIS. Its citation says Filben name is per a map using 1920 data, but the 1911 topo likewise shows no evidence of a community. We need something more concrete than this for notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:57, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Luigikid Gaming

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

Apparently non-notable YouTuber. Possible A7 candidate, but I'm not super great with finding non-English sources. Hog Farm ( talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 14:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article about him was also deleted on German Wiki for the same notability issues. There are no mentions in reliable independent German sources - just social media and user generated sites. Less Unless ( talk) 15:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete no evidence of any notability at all. Like the nominator, I was also debating going for A7 but I've seen people argue that the viewership figures on these sorts of articles constitute a claim of importance. Either way - fails WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 16:15, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 15:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Omer Tarin

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

Non-notable English language poet. Fails WP:NPOET. Störm (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - I created this article quite some time ago and while not very notable, or famous, the poet Omer Tarin is still reasonably notable and well known as a Pakistani poet writing in English. He has received some critical attention in his country and elsewhere and students have even written research theses on his poetic writings. I still believe this article has a future for eventual expansion as the poet is still writing and his work is regularly published. So I would suggest to Keep, please. thanks. Khani100 ( talk) 20:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Khani100 Blocked sock reply
@ Khani100: Could you link examples of the critical attention or theses? — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi MarkH21, I can mention some of the sources offhand but I don't think they would be available online. For example, well-known Pakistani critics and writers like Tariq Rahman and Alamgir Hashmi have critiqued his poetry in their articles in Pakistani and foreign publications. I think a review appeared many years ago in The Journal of Commonwealth Literature , UK in the 1990s. I also remember that 2-3 theses were written on his poetry at BA and MA levels, in Pakistan. I think one thesis was written by a student at the University of Malakand in KP province of Pakistan, I think it was supervised by Prof Aziz of that university's English Department, probably sometime in 2013-2014. Many Pakistani writers and poets who write in English and are quite well-known started writing way back in the 1980s and the 1990s , they were also critiqued and reviewed back then mostly but does that mean that if something isn't available online it doesn't exist? Look at the pages on Wikipedia regarding Pakistani poets like Kaleem Omar, Taufiq Rafat, Shahryar Rashed and others. They are all well known writers but there is little material available on them today online. Omer Tarin is part of this chain or tradition of English poetry from Pakistan. Except for a few , the rest are now deceased. Omer Tarin and Harris Khalique are two who are still writing and will certainly grow in name and stature. They should remain. Khani100 ( talk) 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Khani100 Blocked sock reply
They don't have to be online links, but specific citations (e.g. titles, publication details, etc.) would be nice for verification purposes. We need to know for sure whether the subject passes one of the criteria of WP:NPOET. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi, as I said before I am sorry I don’t have many details available with me now, as I mostly stopped editing Wikipedia maybe 8-9 years ago, although I do a bit occasionally. As far as critical reviews are concerned, if you look at the References section on the Omer Tarin page I think there are full citations given of some articles and reviews of his poetry by prominent Pakistani literary critics Dr Tariq Rahman, Muneeza Shamsie and Prof Eric Cyprian. Alamgir Hashmi the poet and academic also reviewed his poetry as well as some other poets from Pakistan in a research article in The Journal of Commonwealth Literature , UK, in September 1995, Vol 30 I think. Omer Tarin also played a part in developing the theory of a Pakistani literary-artistic idiom along with scholars, critics and poets like Taufiq Rafat, Raza Romi and others, this article by the writer Bina Shah briefly refers to this theoretic recognition: https://www.dawn.com/news/1240869 . He is also a historian and his writings and contributions in this field have also been recognized in books by some authors like Peter Oborne in his book on Pakistani cricket: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=EXXGBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA523&lpg=PA523&dq=omer+tarin+and+peter+oborne&source=bl&ots=AoyFfJkZJY&sig=ACfU3U1IolbPEnzsctKet-1TMiv0pV_PEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiiqoLv3LbnAhXJMMAKHdASDLgQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=omer%20tarin%20and%20peter%20oborne&f=false In fact, if Omer Tarin’s literary and academic work is compared with other Pakistani writers it’s actually reasonably notable and noteworthy. Khani100 ( talk) 01:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Khani100 Blocked sock reply

Sir please I request, why you wish to delete this ? Kindly Keep. Many people like the poetry of Omar Tarin , a good poet from our country. Most humbly, thanks. SyedAnjumAli1 ( talk) 11:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)SyedAnjumAli1 Blocked sock reply

Comment. One might argue that he passes WP:AUTHOR #4c (he did won some attention, and who knows if it was "significant"), however the history of creating this page and multiple accounts are concerning. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 14:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. Socktastic editor also made articles for him in German, Scots (!) and Fiji Hindi. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:NPOET. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 21:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak delete: There are reviews towards NPOET #1 & #3, but not enough for the admittedly subjective significant, important, or well-known. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Abdul Nazer Mahdani

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

Fails WP:NPOL He never won any election the article made with WP:REFBOMB Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. Taking into account the refs in the article - the subject has been covered by multiple reliable independent sources which makes him notable per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Less Unless ( talk) 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Is this person political activist..? If so, have this person contested any election..??-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 16:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the subject meets WP:GNG but fails the specific - he is still considered notable. Specific notability guidelines are not primary. Citation from the guideline: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". Less Unless ( talk) 11:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep He is a notable person in the local politics, headed a political party PDP , in Kerala state of India. Irfannaseefp ( talk) 05:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep easily meets WP:BASIC. AfD is not cleanup.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 00:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep WP:GNG is clearly established by sourcing. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 00:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Siasun Robotics

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

Fails WP:GNG and has been written in an advertising manner. The article does not cite secondary reliable sources. Abishe ( talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 14:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keepish or Draftify. I agree that the article is somewhat promotional, it definitely needs a clean-up, but I have found secondary sources that can be used to expand the article: LePoint, Profile on Bloomberg, China Daily, Bangkok Post, Business Wire. So my option is to keep and enhance. Less Unless ( talk) 15:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep I spent some time adding the valuable secondary sources from Less Unless to the article, as well as doing some general cleanup to it. I believe that the company itself has enough notability to be included. While looking for other secondary sources, many news corporations discussed the company, with the company's own findings coming up in journals from at least 2002. Some cleanup could still be done though to bring it to a more acceptable level, but as it stands now, it's at least much less promotional than before. Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 01:53, 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 redirect to Behind Enemy Lines (film series)#Cancelled pilot. This leaves open the possibility of a merge if someone is so inclined. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Behind Enemy Lines (2017 TV pilot)

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

As per WP:TVSHOW, unaired TV pilots are generally not notable enough for standalone articles. This article consists of nothing but casting notices (and the one "Fox passes on pilot" article) which, on their own, do not demonstrate notability. Instead, article should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to Behind Enemy Lines (film series)#Cancelled pilot which is how the subject should be handled. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete No cult notability, no airing after pilot season, and outside a couple of known names to sell the series, everyone else remains a cast of unknowns. Nothing here to keep outside a one-sentence line about it in the 2001 film article. Nate • ( chatter) 14:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Redirect to the film. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Behind Enemy Lines (film series)#Cancelled pilot. And since that seems to be what the nominator is proposing, I'm unclear why this was brought to AFD at all and not just boldly redirected? Hug^syrup 15:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
- Because AfD decisions are binding. Also, I'm at "delete, and then redirect", rather than just "redirect". -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  - So is consensus at the talk page, if the redirect is controversial or reverted. And why? Is there something in the page history that needs to be removed? If not, I cannot see any good reason for 'delete & redirect' rather than just 'redirect'. Hug^syrup 08:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy close as nominator has admitted to deliberately misusing AfD. I would not necessarily be opposed to a redirect without deletion if discussed at the proper venue, however. Modernponderer ( talk) 20:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
- What are you babbling about? I see you're bad faith casting WP:ASPERSIONS, with no basis in fact, as usual. (Note: This editor has a history of him assuming bad faith on my part – more can be found at my talk page...) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  - @ User:IJBall: No aspersions here. I'm simply referring to your discussion with User:Hugsyrup immediately above. Modernponderer ( talk) 08:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    - Which shows nothing of a "deliberate misuse" of AfD. So, no – assuming bad faith, and WP:ASPERSIONS, indeed. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge the production section to Behind Enemy Lines (film series)#Cancelled pilot. While notability is not sufficient for a stand-alone article, the sources are fine and content is more in-depth than the merge target. – sgeureka ^t•
c 09:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep or Draftify or Merge: I was under the impression that "Behind Enemy Lines" did air, as a TV movie. In fact, I thought I saw it! I've only just seen this nomination now, but would like to look into it and perhaps work on the article. There seem to be sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG at the very least, so "Keeping" or "Draftifying" for the moment doesn't seem too big an issue. Dflaw4 ( talk) 08:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Question for Nominator: Hi, IJBall, could you please clarify your position for me, because I saw on the article's "Talk" page that you said the article should be "merged"? Here, however, you seem to be opting for a "delete" or a "redirect". If you could clear this up for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Dflaw4 ( talk) 08:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
- Honestly, any of "merge", "redirect" or "delete" is fine by me. Personally, I don't think the casting info for an unaired pilot – and to be clear, this did not ever air anywhere AFAICT, certainly not in the U.S. (there are Behind Enemy Lines "sequel" films that have been released, but they are unrelated to this TV pilot) – is important enough to "merge", but I understand if others disagree. But as per WP:TVSHOW, casting announcements for an unaired TV pilot are not enough to show notability for an article. (Generally, TV show notability is shown by a mix of articles on production, critical reviews, and sometimes analysis of themes or characters.) So, personally, I am more at "redirect" or "delete". -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clarifying, IJBall. This is confusing for me because, as I said, I thought I had seen it—I am probably mistaking it for something else, though I honestly thought I had seen it as a TV movie. I'll keep digging for a bit and see if there's anything else out there on it, and then I'll update my vote if necessary. Thanks again, Dflaw4 ( talk) 14:15, 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) 22:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Shiv Shakti Sangam

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

Article about an event in 2016 fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA and WP:LASTING due to the lack of sustained coverage over time. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per the nomination.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 12:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per the above. Not every "gathering" belongs in the encyclopedia. Not even the unusually large ones. BD2412 T 13:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Per above. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:42, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Githyanki

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

This article fails to establish notability. The single reception source is a trivial gameplay blurb that doesn't even really belong in the article. TTN ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 12:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - per nom. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. No notability beyond that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 14:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Monster Manual cruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 11:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep or, failing that, merge to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters: Aside from two minor mentions in secondary sources already present in the article, the Arcane article does not dwell long on the githyanki, but provides analysis of a game element and its usefulness, the absence of which is usually brought forth as a an argument for deletion. As for length, The Monsters Know What They're Doing does some three pages on the githyanki. If that's not deemed enough for keeping the article, it should be merged and redirected because loosing the information present by deletion has no benefits, while it can improve the merge target. Daranios ( talk) 20:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge or draftify pending improvement. BD2412 T 02:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete and Redirect to Fiend Folio. Minor mentions do not count towards GNG, and it has been pretty well established that The Monsters Know What They're Doing is useless for notability purposes. I am not sure about the status of Arcane, but one source is not enough to pass GNG in any case. The Fiend Folio article contains a sentence of the Githyanki, and is a better target than the alternative. As with other D&D articles, it should be deleted before redirecting to prevent recreation. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello Devonian Wombat! Where and on what basis has it been "pretty well established that The Monsters Know What They're Doing is useless for notability purposes"? Who get's to decide such a thing permanently? I guess one can argue about the merits of the content for the githyanki entry in this book, but to discount the book as a whole is quite a different matter. Cool username, by the way. Daranios ( talk) 16:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. The coverage in secondary sources is either trivial, or, as in the case of the suggested The Monsters Know What They're Doing, is nothing more than a literal game guide about how to use them in-game. There is no coverage in reliable, secondary sources that actually indicate real world notability. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't see why the creative origin or an evaluation if a game element is a good game element is trivial. Daranios ( talk) 19:56, 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. Sandstein 20:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Celina Rollon

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

BLP with no real evidence of notability Rathfelder ( talk) 12:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Only one source cited in the article may be of the sort that supports notability, and I find no others via Google. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete my research also hasn't shown any significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG as well as specific. Less Unless ( talk) 15:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: The SXSW links should be done away with. Linkedin & Twitter accounts should be categorized as External Links. Article needs some minor cleanup. Other than that, article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

What reliable sources have you seen with significant independent coverage that support a finding of notability? That's the pertinent question. Largoplazo ( talk) 02:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I can't find any real significant coverage by reliable sources outside the one source mentioned above by Largoplazo. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 23:25, 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 Merge to Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, D.C.. There is a clear consensus that this should not exist as a separate article. With respect to the ultimate resolution, there is no clear consensus, and enough support for the information being useful that a merge remains as the best option. BD2412 T 05:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Consulate-General of Pakistan, Chicago

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

fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. 3 of the 5 references merely confirm who was consul. LibStar ( talk) 14:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, meets WP:V, useful and encyclopedic. No indication that deletion of this longstanding article would serve the project's interests. More importantly, the burden of proof should always be on the proponent of deletion, and that burden does not seem to have been carried here. It's not clear that WP:ORG is intended to apply to government agencies at all (it seems odd that they would be omitted from the laundry list: "charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc.") Even if ORG applies, it's unclear how it is possible to fail a guideline that only states certain conditions for establishing a presumption of notability. As somebody or other probably said somewhere, the absence of a presumption does not justify a presumption of absence. -- Visviva ( talk) 02:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

burden of proof? Complete lack of third party sources... have you found any? Your arguments for keep are just WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL. This fails WP:GNG by a long mark. LibStar ( talk) 11:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Added 5 new references to the article today – Chicago Tribune (newspaper), University of Chicago website, Dawn (newspaper) and Pakistan American Business Association website. Hopefully, this satisfies the requirement for 'third party and independent sources'. Removed all dead references from 2009 and updated the remaining references. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 23:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply
- Note that the Chicago Tribune article is from a "community contributor" and the Dawn article doesn't mention the consulate at all. Pburka ( talk) 00:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The above-mentioned Dawn newspaper article DOES mention this Chicago Consulate. Here is a direct quote from this Dawn article, "The day-long Youth Conference was organized by Consulate General of Pakistan, Chicago in collaboration with the University of Illinois at Chicago and was attended by over 300 students and young professionals of Pakistani origin". Ngrewal1 ( talk) 18:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

You're correct. I'd missed that single mention. It does confirm that the consulate exists. Pburka ( talk) 18:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar ( talk) 00:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete We have a bunch of articles with passing mentions. There are no articles about the CGoP. We are unable to source content about the role of the organization. We can just say events in which they were involved.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of whether the added sources demonstrate notability or just existence
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment It may be more proper to create an omnibus article dealing with all of the Consulate-General presences in the United States so that a better article can be formed (including Boston, New York, Los Angeles and Houston); even the template is out of date involving North American C-G presences of Pakistan. Nate • ( chatter) 20:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge to Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, D.C. It appears to fail WP:GNG. None of the sources given are about the consulate's history itself; it's about things that happened there. None of them are evidence that the CG has had a significant independent history, either as an organization (only established in 2005) or as a physical site (since it's just a suite in 333 North Michigan). After other editors have attempted to find sources, here's all they've been able to dig up as of 2020-02-09:
1. "Consulate General of Pakistan in Chicago Celebrated the 69th Independence Day with Patriotic Fervor" is on chicagotribune.com, but is by a "community contributor" (which means "unsolicited and unpaid"), contains the writer's opinions, and appears to have not been edited for professional English, so probably not Chicago Tribune editorial-level content. Also, this is about an independence day event, not about the history or overall operation of the Consulate-General itself. So it doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV, and is weak on being "reliable" and "independent of the subject" also.
2. PABA press release: Only about the Consulate General in passing, in that the CG issued a press release and that the consul hosted a party for the kids. Not WP:SIGCOV at all.
3. "New Silk Road Business Opportunities": University of Chicago Booth School of Business event ticket announcement; only mentions the CG at the end as one of several co-sponsors. Practically a textbook example of what is not WP:SIGCOV.
4. "Haqqani urges Pakistani-Americans to be carve niche in US mainstream": Just another event organized by the CG in Chicago. "Similar events are planned to be held in New York, Houston and Los Angeles in the coming months, officials said." Not WP:SIGCOV.
5. "Chicago Consulate – Consulate General of Pakistan". Just the directory and staff information for the CG, by the Pakistani embassy. Not independent, and not significant coverage anyway; fails WP:SIGCOV.
6. "List of Consulates in City of Chicago, Office of the Mayor website": The title says it all. It's just a directory. Not WP:SIGCOV.
7. "Mr. Javed Ahmed Umrani, Consul General of Pakistan, Chicago": The title says it all; it's a short biography of the current consul general, not the Chicago post itself; and also, it's on the Chicago CG's own website, so it wouldn't be an independent source anyway. Not WP:SIGCOV of the Consulate-General.
For completeness: Of the 5 sources before February, 4 were official publications of the Pakistani delegation/embassy/consulate, so not independent of the subject; and the other one, "Pak Consulate Chicago opens, Mayor Daley and Ambassador Karamat felicitate hard working Pakistani community." on January 23, 2005, appears to have been from Pakistan Press International, but the original link is long gone and seems to have been paywalled even in archives, and I don't have access to see if that was WP:SIGCOV or not. I can't find any other English-language WP:SIGCOV articles about the consulate-general, and since it opened in 2005, one would assume that any significant coverage would be on the web. -- Closeapple ( talk) 03:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. There's nothing that shows this consulate is any more notable than every other consulate from every other country. Sandals1 ( talk) 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge to Embassy of Pakistan, Washington, D.C. and add the information and photos over there. Instead of so many fragmented small articles, having a larger article which includes information about all the Pakistani diplomatic missions in the US is preferable. I do not agree with deleting this article since the diplomatic presence of a country in another is something which I would expect to read in an encyclopaedia. I agree with consolidating all of these in one article.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 18:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 10:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge per Closeapple and DreamLinker. Pburka ( talk) 22:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete What is there to merge exactly? Closeapple shows what kind of sourcing is available. That doesn't, in my opinion, belong in the embassy article. At best we would note that there is a consulate in Chicago and who the top official is. But that's hardly "merge" worthy and the embassy isn't even, in my reading, a good redirect target because again what useful information are we redirecting someone interested in this topic to? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:57, 26 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 20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Avasant

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

Does not meet present standard for notability. No references that meet WP:NCORP-- they are either mere notices, or not truly independent and substantial. DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete all I can find is press releases. I see no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations ( talk) 16:27, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Canadian Impressionism

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

As a previous prod stated, there was no Canadian Impressionism, just impressionists from Canada. The term was coined recently in conjunction with a book and there is no further coverage of the topic. There are sources that talk of impressionism and Canada but note that this is different. None of those sources claim that a movement ever existed, mainly because it didn't. It's a neologism used as an umbrella term for a number of Canadian artists working in the impressionist style. What little that is here in this article can be found elsewhere. There is only one source given and no other supporting sources exist, other than a few brief mentions in connection with the book. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment would it be of any value to rename it Impressionism in Canada? I'm personally not familiar enough with general coverage articles to say. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I think Canadian Impressionism is better, as some artists produced works outside the country, such as James Wilson Morrice. Curiocurio ( talk) 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep The article has some good supporting references. The fact that the term is a neologism is no cause for concern. There was no term "Renaissance" during the Renaissance or "Middle Ages" during the Middle Ages. The fact that authorities are using the phrase Canadian Impressionism (the National Gallery, Apollo magazine) should be sufficient. The History section does need some expansion though. Curiocurio ( talk) 17:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep The article has solid sources, looks like a good start and can always be improved. The topic definitely deserves its own page in my opinion, so I don't see why we'd delete it. Auberginandjuice ( talk) 00:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Sharlin Farzana

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

Non-notable actress who fails the notability guideline for entertainers. GSS  ^💬 04:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS  ^💬 04:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS  ^💬 04:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep: Having checked online, I think the actress does pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, with several mains roles in plays. But given that my online search was limited by virtue of my inability to speak Bengali, I will take on board the opinions of other editors and will amend my vote if necessary. Dflaw4 ( talk) 13:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Dflaw4: What? Did you read the policy before voting here? GSS  ^💬 14:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

No, I just waddled on up and voted "Keep" just to rock the boat... If you read my comment above you'll know that I will take into account the opinions of other editors who are better placed to appraise the Bengali sources. If I am swayed by what they have to say, I will change my vote. Dflaw4 ( talk) 00:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Update: I downgraded my vote to a "Weak Keep" based on the comments of আফতাবুজ্জামান, who appears to be in a better position than me to evaluate the sources. Dflaw4 ( talk) 14:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom & WP:TOOSOON. She acted in one film which is not released yet & acted in some non notable tv drama. All source are primary, Interview mixed with a press release masquerading as an article. This article is translated from bn:শার্লিন ফারজানা, it got deleted there for same reason. We can always create this article when she became notable. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

~~Comment~~ Delete based on the input by আফতাবুজ্জামান, this seems to be a case for deletion. While she has not yet acted in any films, it appears she has starred in several television series, which should also be taken into account. If the sources cited are reliable (which they may be although I can't recognize Bangladeshi news sources), then I would be inclined to keep. IphisOfCrete ( talk) 23:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Those are not tv series but one hour one episode like tv drama. Non notable tv drama. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 20:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 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. Sandstein 20:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Georges Blun

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

Fails WP:GNG, some minor passing references but nothing that establishes notability Mztourist ( talk) 09:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 09:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 09:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete no substantial sources on him. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment: This article instance is based on the German article. It is worth noting that the Russian-language article is far more detailed (and lists a number of sources which I have not yet appraised). Blun is also mentioned in books covering various points, particularly in 1937 [12] and the 1940s, so was clearly acting as an Intelligence conduit, but it remains open whether this amounts to specific notability. AllyD ( talk) 08:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

He was widely cited journalist in the interwar period, and wrote at least one book L'Allemagne mise a nu (La nouvelle Soc. d'Edition, Paris,. 1927, 183 p.) The Observer described it as being about "the German attitude toward foreign politics". I added a book he wrote and a couple of sources. IceFishing ( talk) 20:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment ok but does that meet WP:NAUTHOR? I don't think so. Mztourist ( talk) 04:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The thing about this page is that it's meant to be a discussion to which we contribute with the goal of figuring out how notable a topic is. Publishing a book of which note was taken, having pages on the Russian and French Wikipedias, and getting so many hits in searches in books and articles about espionage in the World War II era, are all indications that he is probably notable. With Blun, even a simple google search gets some interesting hits, like this CIA.gov file: [13]/html/v13i3a05p_0001.htm]. IceFishing ( talk) 11:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

That CIA book was already there as a ref when I put this up for AFD. The relevant criteria for WP:GNG is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I would argue that all the coverage is just trivial passing mentions. Mztourist ( talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. Would appear to meet WP:GNG. Clearly a very senior foreign correspondent in Berlin at the time and later a resistance leader. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Besides his interwar career as a journalist, he later became the leader of a resistance group and was among the few people to survive the third reich's purge of the 'red orchestra' - perhaps the largest and most notable clandestine network working against the nazi regime. Definitely noteworthy enough in my book, though this page does definitely need an overhaul. More sources could definitely flesh this article out. Goodposts ( talk) 18:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment - I've added some changes to the article - found references to him in the archives of the newspaper for which he worked, as well as by Russian publications detailing Soviet spy activities during WW2. He appears to have continued being a renowned author at least up until the mid 50s, and his spy career extends to serving many different countries. Only one source found on the date of death, though, and it pegs him as dying at the age of 106 - not very likely, though plausible for a Swiss/French resident. Goodposts ( talk) 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep -- As leader of a resistance group he is likely to be notable. The article needs expansion to show what he actually did: the content is rather thin at present. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - there are enough sources that he passes GNG. An interesting life. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep the sources in the current version of the article combined with those in other language wikis show that they meet WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
keep - there are many sources that prove the article is notable, so Mr. Blun is worthy of an article. Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 01:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:HEY; the article has been improved tremendously since nomination. Well done. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 01:38, 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 procedural close. Multiple editors note the grouping of articles does not appear to meet the guidelines at WP:MULTIAFD. While created by the same user, the subjects differ enough such that bundling is not appropriate. Kinu ^t/_c 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

2010 Incarnate Word Cardinals football team

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

Per WP:NSEASONS Also listing: (please note that the following were all created by the same user)

Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Abilene Christian Wildcats football team Willbb234^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 10:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Strong keep per the standard practice of having articles for recent FCS seasons. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

To note, the 2010 Incarnate Word, 2011 Incarnate Word, and 2012 Incarnate Word articles are about Division II football team seasons. The rest are FCS (or Division I basketball). I think these need to be separated out into individual AFDs, as a Division II football team season is significantly less notable than an FCS football team season, and a Division I men's basketball team season is a different sport entirely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Strong keep – WP:CFB has a practice of having individual season articles for FBS and FCS teams. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 15:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Willbb234's deletion rationale is simply a link to WP:NSEASONS, which states that the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline in relation to top-level programs. Despite not being "top-level programs", UIW, Southern, TSU, and UNA are still written about by multiple reliable, verifiable sources every week. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 16:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Procedural Keep These articles are so completely different that a WP:MULTIAFD is completely inappropriate. The ones that are actually Division I should be kept per all above, but some of these are lower division seasons and they should never have been bundled together. And one of them is a completely different sport. Entirely inappropriate bundle. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment The AfD banner was never added to the other articles. As such, this is even more in violation of WP:MULTIAFD than I initially thought. Smartyllama ( talk) 21:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I added the templates. But it's obvious at this point the nom didn't read WP:MULTIAFD and this should be speedily closed. Smartyllama ( talk) 21:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per PCN02WPS and Smartyllama. This is an incoherent grouping. Ostealthy ( talk) 22:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural close per Smartyllama. We can discuss the notability of a D2 football season, but this grouping of noms makes zero sense. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 03:34, 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

2020 Tarleton State Texans football team

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

Per WP:NSEASONS. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Abilene Christian Wildcats football team Willbb234^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 09:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 09:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Strong keep per the standard practice of having articles for recent FCS seasons. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
- Comment But the season is still six months away? At this point, it's WP:CRYSTAL. Nate • ( chatter) 14:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  - But that's not why this was nominated and it's also standard practice to create season articles before the season begins. I don't think there's any reason to believe that this particular season won't take place. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong keep – WP:CFB has a practice of having individual season articles for FBS and FCS teams. This article would have been created at some point before the 2020 season began, and, as the 2019 season has concluded, it is not WP:TOOSOON. It does not qualify for deletion per WP:CRYSTAL either, as that policy reads Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place; this season is all but certain to take place and for an entire college football season to be cancelled would be coming out of nowhere. Willbb234's deletion rationale is simply a link to WP:NSEASONS, which states that the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline in relation to top-level programs. Despite not being a "top-level program", Tarleton State will still be written about by multiple reliable, verifiable sources every week, due to its place as Division I college football team. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 16:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

PCN02WPS Tarleton State will still be written about by multiple reliable, verifiable sources every week. Prove it. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 18:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) @ Willbb234: Here is Tarleton State's 2019 schedule, game-by-game on ESPN. Their season-opening upset over FCS Stephen F. Austin last season was covered in USA Today and the Tyler Morning Telegraph. They are also covered in the Stephenville Empire-Tribune - from a quick glance, I found articles detailing games ( here, here, here, here, and here), articles detailing signing classes ( here), rankings ( here, here, here, and here), with an article detailing their upcoming 2020 schedule having been published more recently. Dave Campbell's Texas Football did an article about their win against West Texas A&M. Keep in mind that all of this is while they were a Division II team; the prevalence and quality of these sources will only increase when they begin play at the Division I level in the fall. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 20:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep Division I NCAA seasons are notable due to the large amount of coverage they get. A team's first season at this level is even more so. Complete waste of time for everyone involved, let's just close this now rather than waste a week of everyone's time dealing with this garbage again. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. FCS seasons are notable, per GNG. Ostealthy ( talk) 22:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes GNG and subject area conventions for inclusion. Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep agree, clear pass of WP:GNG and we normally keep season articles on this level of play. Schedule is set and information is already available in WP:RS about the season.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Per above. It is not TOOSOON, though I would prefer we have an article on the football program before individual seasons. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 17:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 07:08, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Analytics India Magazine

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

Promotional article about a non-notable magazine. Sourced exclusively to non-independent sources, passing mentions in run-of-the-mill business news, or press releases. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, as well as WP:NMAG Hug^syrup 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete for reasons enumerated by Hugsyrup.-- Dorama285 00:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Let us clean it up instead of deleting it. It is certainly one of the premier Indian online publications covering developments pertaining to analytics and AI companies in India and delivers a lot of news and information about the analytics space in India. -- Sachi Mohanty ( talk) 19:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

It's not like citations are not available about the magazine; it is just that no one had bothered to search for them and add them to the page. Sachi Mohanty 21:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete Lacks reliable sources and the ones in the article don't cut it. As they are either trivial coverage, directly primary, press releases, or just study they have done but not actually about them as a company. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:45, 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs ( talk) 10:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

All the Stations

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

This is just WP:FANCRUFT. It is a train enthusiast's own project to visit all the railway stations in the United Kingdom and Ireland and this doesn't make it notable at all. The article is made up mostly of a table which tells which railway stations Geoff visited and which day he visited them. This is fancruft because it is only of importance to a small number of railway enthusiasts. This is not a very notable and well-known project and sourcing is made up of mostly the All the Stations website or the Kickstarter website. Therefore, this should be deleted. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. It's not fancruft because there is extensive coverage of the program in The Times, The Telegraph, CNN, The Guardian, etc. I know there are some train-obsessed people who want articles about every station water fountain but this is well-sourced and actually quite impressive. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
It is not very well sourced because the majority of sourcing points to All the Stations which is the project's own website, Kickstarter which is where All the Stations was crowdfunded and Twitter which is not a reliable source. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 09:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and not a valid deletion reason in itself (as it says, it simply means that fancrufty articles may fail other deletion criteria). In this case, given that it's sourced to at least three major UK newspapers, national UK TV, and CNN, this probably doesn't fall into any of them. A 2-minute Google also found sources from the BBC and two major Irish news outlets. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge. The article does have a number of good reliable sources (CNN, The Times, etc.) and is quite notable, but it's not much more than a glorified list of YouTube videos. There is already a reasonably well-sourced section on Geoff Marshall which discusses the project - any particularly notable / interesting information should perhaps be merged from to Marshall's personal article. All the Stations has previously been nominated for deletion on 14 September 2017.-- Tvcameraop ( talk) 09:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - substantial mentions in a number of reliable sources across a range of media, including national news media such as the BBC and RTE. There is an argument for doing something better with the tables, but that's much more of an argument for improvement rather than to delete - and, frankly, we have featured lists which have less notability or sourcing than this article does. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 09:44, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Least used railway stations in Great Britain

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

The page is just a complete mess. There is just too much original research in compiling a list of least-used stations for each county. There are plenty of anomalies with ORR's railway statistics but it doesn't mean that it is least-used. One of ORR's old railway statistics shows Luton Airport Parkway railway station at 6 entries and exits in the 1997-1998 statistics when Luton Airport Parkway hasn't even opened until November 1999. It also shows Dunston railway station at 146 entries and exits and Newark Castle railway station at 351 entries and exits and Moorgate station at 490 entries and exits. Whilst ORR's statistics might be more accurate today; it wasn't very accurate 20 years ago. Citing ORR from 20 years ago is not a reliable source as there were a lot of anomalies at that time but a substantial amount of the article cites an unreliable source to say that they are least-used. I feel that this article needs to be deleted or complete rewritten again. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 08:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 08:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 08:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. Per my comments here, this is a legitimate topic, but trying to clean out the original research, personal commentary, and inappropriate sourcing would take more time and effort than rewriting a compliant article from scratch. ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Listcruft and the definitions as to what constitutes use are problematic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. I can see there might perhaps be some merit in an article about little-used stations nationally seeing as it's a topic that provokes some interest and media coverage, however this article seems to prioritise the county where each station resides over any other factors which seems pretty arbitrary to me (and frankly bizarre in the case of Rutland, which only has one station). I think the article as it stands needs to go, but I'd certainly be open to it being re-created in a more appropriate form in the future. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 09:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. I think the topic itself is borderline notable, as there is some coverage on the top few least-used stations at sources such as [14] and [15]. But per the above comments there's way too much info in this current incarnation, particularly the "by county" list, which looks like WP:SYNTH because reliable sources haven't categorised them that way. Overall I think this concept should be mentioned somewhere, with a redirect, but per WP:NOPAGE does not have enough material to warrant its own page. — Amakuru ( talk) 11:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Stubify, partly per Iridescent - Think that an article on least used stations in the UK would be notable, but we don't need a list of them. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Railcruft. Lamberhurst ( talk) 09:22, 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. Fenix down ( talk) 14:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Bertrand Oubida

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

No evidence of notability: article asserts that he holds school and college records for 800m (nothing notable about that) and that he "signed and played with" a professional football club, but the only football-related source gives no evidence that he played any matches. Pam D 08:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Pam D 08:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm not sure how User:GiantSnowman assessed this so quickly! I've been looking at it for about 20 minutes, and still don't know what to do with it. This one is a bit odd. Much older versions exist in no less than 9 other languages - the best probably being in Japanese - ja:ベルトラン・マック・ギルダス・ウビダ. If he played in J3, then he does meet WP:NFOOTBALL. But at the same time, I can't see an indication he actually played. But why does he appear in 9 other wikis? And there does seem to be a lot of media coverage - perhaps for simply being a stranger in a strange land. Is there more to this than I'm seeing? There's certainly a lot more sources in the various other versions of this article. Was there a previously deleted English version I've not found? Nfitz ( talk) 21:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. No evidence of subject passing either football or general notability guidelines. The Japanese version has a career stats table that records zero appearances and the text says he joined the J3 club in 2015 and his contract was cancelled in mid-season. ~~Google translate thinks that article's creator has a talk page full of advice to stop creating micro-stubs and to wait until there's some media coverage of a player before creating an article.~~ Striking the previous sentence: that advice is years old, and not really relevant anyway. Sorry. The other language versions have minimal content, were created by the now globally-locked Gonta-Kun or their fellow socks (apart from the Esperanto one, which looks like another of the sockfarm but hasn't been locked yet), and are sourced only to a stats database which lists no stats. I see no evidence of "a lot of media coverage": there's enough primary and local sources to show he ran fast when he was in high school, but that seems to be it (disclaimer: at least in Latin-script news sources; I don't read Japanese). cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 17:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:06, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Ajana Sima: The X Boundary

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS. Self-published user generated references. No sign of notability. Created by socks for promotional purposes. Sambhil32 ( talk) 07:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Nizil Shah: pinging editor who previous nominated it on the same ground. Sambhil32 ( talk) 07:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I had proposed deletion in past due to lack of WP:RS and failed WP:NBOOKS. The reviews are link of facebook posts generated by author and other non-RS sites. It is hardly notable works IMO. - Nizil ( talk) 11:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The article fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Via google search it does not seem to me that that it will pass these criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I am a native speaker of the writer's native language. The all claims are false there in first AfD. All sources fail WP:RS and it was claimed there "Ajana Sima: The X Boundary is among the very few science fiction books written in Bengali language." is totally false. Many sci-fi books are written in Bangla. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

S. M. Nazmus Shakib Thank you for the information. I have been working with different articles related to Indian writers and came across this one. Would you mind checking the other articles if such unverified promotional claims were made? Regards, Sambhil32 ( talk) 16:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Sambhil32 Why not? If I know the language, I will help you to find those unverified promotional claims. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 17:01, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Sarpa Manav: Nagmoni Rohosyo

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS. Self-published user generated references. No sign of notability. Created by socks for promotional purposes. Sambhil32 ( talk) 07:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The article fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Even, via google search it does not seem to me that it will pass these criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:48, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Koto Bhoot! Ki Adbhut!

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS. Self-published user generated references. No sign of notability. Created by socks for promotional purposes. Sambhil32 ( talk) 07:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The article fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Even, via google search it does not seem to me that it will pass these criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:47, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Suman Sen

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Sources are user-generated from non-reliable websites. Pages for books were created by socks [16]. Listed filmography are basic youtube videos with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Sambhil32 ( talk) 07:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sambhil32 ( talk) 07:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The article fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Even via google search it doesn't seem to me that he will pass these criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 15:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:17, 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 speedy delete (G11). ( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 07:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Directoshivam

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, certainly the page appears to be promo. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 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) 07:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Whitney och Elton Johansson

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

This article fails WP:GNG. BonkHindrance ( talk) 04:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance ( talk) 04:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance ( talk) 04:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 17. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. This is an iconic annual Christmas program for children in Sweden broadcast since 1957. Each year there is a different special with different guests and music. The main article for the show is Sveriges Radio's Christmas Calendar. As you can see nearly every edition has its own article in the English Wikipedia, including the most recent one. If you say this one is not notable, you will have to AfD all the articles. Check out the Swedish version for sources and the template with all the articles about every edition. The article just needs to be cleaned up because it's not clear at all what it is and why it's notable. It's not a calendar but a TV special. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - Appears to be a WP:GNG pass per these sources: 1 2 FOARP ( talk) 14:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: Per Wikimandia. _SUPER ^ASTIG 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, per above, linked sources and the Swedish article. The annual Christmas radio serial is a major thing in Sweden. / Julle ( talk) 12:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Very Strong Keep (for all of these programmes) J 1982 ( talk) 21:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Truly a notable Swedish Christmas radio program. TheSkinsAdded ( talk) 09:35, 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 Wrong forum. This is articles for deletion, not articles for redirection. Use the talk page to discuss that. Also, it looks like nobody cares. Sandstein 20:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Lithe

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

I'm proposing a redirect to the programming language with a hatnote to the fictional holiday per WP:ONEOTHER, but would like to make sure there's consensus to do this first so I'm not disruptive. Only other possible entry would be a link to wiktionary, and I don't think that should be added to a dab page. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:04, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Ecthelion

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

Unsure if this is still a valid dab page. There's a redlink, a redirect, an "other uses" that should probably be a see also, and another "other use" that I'm unsure of the validity of. At best, it's probably a WP:ONEOTHER situation. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm ( talk) 05:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete There are not any actual articles needed to be disambiguated. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:18, 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 keep. Consensus is keep and rename. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 18:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Your Hit Parade number-one singles

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

I am proposing this list article's deletion due to the impossibility of locating reliable sources listing number-one singles from the Your Hit Parade program.

The reason no such source exists is simple: Your Hit Parade was never a singles chart, nor did it ever aspire to be. The program tabulated and presented the most popular songs of the day -- and though this distinction may seem silly, nitpicky, or negligible to the modern music fan, in the 1930s the difference was quite significant indeed.

Today, and indeed for most of the history of the music industry since the late 1950s, a hit song is associated almost exclusively with a single definitive recording by the artist who released it. This has been the case for so long that it's now difficult to imagine it having been any other way, but in fact from the inception of the music industry up through the early- to mid-1940s it was a profoundly different situation: songs came to prominence not through the release and promotion of recordings, but by performances (by numerous musicians and ensembles rather than a sole act) in vaudeville and theater, on radio broadcasts, and in film. Recordings of hit songs on 78 RPM singles tended to follow, not precede, the songs' rise to popularity, and it was not unusual for a hit song to become popular despite no noteworthy recordings of it ever being released.

Editors of this article have attempted to circumvent this reality by falsely, and without citation, claiming that the proprietary formula used by the producers of Your Hit Parade aimed to "determine the sales rankings of 78 rpm singles." In truth, it was sales of sheet music, along with radio broadcast, that appeared to be the dominant factors constituting the program's rankings; criticism of the program tended to charge that its formula in fact underrepresented 78 RPM record sales and jukebox play as indicators of song popularity. (See Popular Songs of the Twentieth Century, Volume I by Edward Foote Gardner, Paragon House, 2000, page x.) Suggesting that the listed records were the number-one "singles" during this period is therefore misleading in the extreme -- though this did not stop the editors from trying to use the program's notability to generate such a list, along with the compulsory "statistics and trivia" section that editors of charts-related Wikipedia articles unfortunately seem to adore compiling.

Apparently this was possible largely by relying on only one source (which, to the editors' credit, was at least tagged as being potentially unreliable), a self-published PDF from "Arts & Charts," which appears to be a one-man operation generating indexes of the record charts (real, imaginary, or in this case misinterpreted) in the style of Joel Whitburn's. This document, which copies its introduction section from the text of Wikipedia, appears to reproduce the actual song rankings from Your Hit Parade (though I would need to check against a reliable source to be sure) but list them with the prominent recording artists who released them as singles at the time. This effort would be one that the broadcast and recording industry historian Tim Brooks might describe, like Whitburn's deeply flawed Pop Memories tome, as having been produced for the entertainment of those who "don’t care where the numbers come from, as long as they have numbers." (See Brooks's 2001 review, published in the ARSC Journal and available online, of the Gardner title I mentioned above.)

If Your Hit Parade is not a suitable source to catalog the "number-one singles" of the period, might there be an alternative? Unfortunately, no. At the time, trade papers like Variety and Metronome tended to rank the popular tunes of the day by sheet music sales and radio broadcasts -- which makes sense given that at the time, this was a songs-, not records-oriented business. When these publications did attempt to rank top-selling records, these tended to be grouped by region or by label, often based on information provided not through surveys but by the labels themselves. Attempts to "translate" this spotty and sometimes less-than-impartial information into national "charts" that resemble what Billboard publishes today, like Whitburn's aforementioned Pop Memories, have been panned by historians like Brooks, Tim Gracyk, and Allan Sutton along with the journalist Will Friedwald. (See Brooks's 1990 review of Pop Memories in the ARSC Journal, available online; Gracyk's Popular American Recording Pioneers, The Haworth Press, 2000, page 1; Sutton's Recording the Twenties, Mainspring Press, 2008, page 307; Friedwald's "The Whitburning of Classic Pop" in The Village Voice, December 20, 1994, page 8.) The first national chart of actual record popularity in the U.S. was published by Billboard in 1940 (not coincidentally, at a time when the industry was beginning to orient itself gradually toward promoting specific recordings, rather than songs more broadly).

Can this list article be salvaged? Maybe. It would have to be 100% crystal clear that the number-one songs listed were indeed songs, not singles -- this could be done by listing not the artists proffered by the unreliable "Arts & Charts" source, but each song's songwriters and publishing company. This information could be gleaned from proper sources, like Your Hit Parade & American Top 10 Hits by Bruce C. Elrod, Popular Culture Inc., 1994, among other reference works. And of course the misguided statistics/trivia section would need to be deleted entirely.

I apologize for my long-winded and perhaps excessively detailed explanation, but I wanted to ensure that those less familiar with nuances of the early music industry and song popularity charts could understand exactly where I'm coming from.

tl;dr: This article is based on one lousy source and badly misrepresents the nature of the program it is based on. There are no suitable substitutes for American "number-one singles" of this period. Salvaging the contents of the article would require changing its topic entirely and basing it on proper sources.

This list article, along with the associated category 1930s record charts (which contains it and no other articles), should be deleted. Mmrsofgreen ( talk) 04:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete This clearly goes against WP:RS. Thank you for your explanation, as well. BonkHindrance ( talk) 04:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - I don't see an actual WP:DELREASON here. Nom's problem appears to be with the title of the article, and this appears resolvable by renaming it to List of Your Hit Parade number-one songs. With such a title this article would clearly meet WP:GNG and WP:LISTN based on the following sources: 0 1 2 3 4. I did consider a merge to Your Hit Parade but this would clearly result in an overly-long article.

At present the article is sourced to a single source that is clearly unreliable (it cites Wikipedia as its source). However the Your Hit Parade No. One was reported in newspapers and so-forth, and it appears that the books "Your hit parade: April 20, 1935 to June 7, 1958 : American top 10 hits, 1958-1984" and "I've heard those songs before: the weekly top ten tunes for the past fifty years" includes the No. One in its listings, and therefore if copies could be obtained the list could be populated with data from another source. In fact, I think the present source is probably copied from "Your hit parade: April 20, 1935 to June 7, 1958 : American top 10 hits".

TL;DR - A review of the sources shows that the song that was number one on Your Hit Parade was clearly considered notable. Issues with the list are fixable per WP:NEXIST. FOARP ( talk) 09:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

As the user who proposed the deletion, I'll say that I do think the solution you describe here would be acceptable. I was not aware of the mechanics of changing an article's topic or title, merely assuming that starting over with a modified topic would require this one first being deleted; for this I apologize.

The sources you describe would be acceptable, and I think I've seen them in my local library, though I don't know how much time I will have in the near future to go through them and verify each listed song and date. I will say, though, that merely changing the article's title and subbing in a proper source would not fix the article, as it would still misrepresent the Your Hit Parade countdown as a singles, not songs, chart. References to recording artists and record labels would need to be dropped and perhaps substituted, as I noted in my original nomination, with songwriters and publishing companies. Fortunately, this information is readily available in certain reference works, including the Gardner book I mentioned (which I personally own).

Finally, if this article is kept with a modified topic/title, there would be no logical reason to stop the list at the week before Billboard debuted its record chart in 1940, as it does now. The program continued to air through 1959; the only reason the current article stops where it does is because it (falsely) presents the chart as a predecessor to the record charts that debuted in Billboard that year. (Your Hit Parade in reality could be considered a predecessor to that publication's Honor Roll of Hits listing that debuted 1945 and ran until 1963. That songs chart was actually considered the magazine's flagship and most prestigious chart for much of the time that it was published, at least until the Hot 100 came around -- however, it is seldom mentioned today precisely because it is a songs, not singles, chart, and is therefore less comprehensible by the modern Whitburn-/Hot 100-dominated conception of U.S. "chart history.") Mmrsofgreen ( talk) 18:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

To rename an article follow the process described in WP:RM. Rescoping the article to include hits later than the ones it currently has is an article content issue to discuss on the article's talk page (or even just make your own WP:BOLD edits). WP:NODEADLINE is an important rule on Wiki so I wouldn't be concerned about not having the time right now to fix this. Having gone through the listings presently on the page, in as much as they can be confirmed form other sources, it appears accurate so I don't have any WP:V concerns. FOARP ( talk) 08:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Mmrsofgreen PS - some additional comments regarding this article: whilst the radio show might not play the record by the artist who popularised the song that made their number one that week, it is pretty clear which artist was responsible for popularising it. For example, does anyone doubt that Glenn Miller was behind songs that he had popularised dominating the top spot in the chart for four months running in June-September 1939? Certainly the list of Glenn Miller "Top Tens" (now cited in the article) credits this to him and his band. Maybe we need to explain better in the list that this is different to simple record sales, but I think the artists who popularised the songs each week still deserve mention if this can be supported in a reliable source. FOARP ( talk) 08:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep and rename, per FOARP. Rlendog ( talk) 15:24, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

East African Airlines

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

Article on a defunct, short-lived Ugandan airline that used to operate one (1) airplane. A standard BEFORE fails to find RS. Those sources in article are to press releases and planespotting websites. Fails WP:NCORP. Chetsford ( talk) 03:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - A very short article with two references about a company that ran for only five years. Analog Horror, ( Communicate) 01:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Lacks notability. There's lots of articles out there about none notable fly by night airlines that could use AfDs. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Small short-lived company. I don't see sources for this.-- Chuka Chief ( talk) 18:30, 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 redirect to John Wick. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

John Wick Presents

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

Article on a commercial company has one WP:INDEPENDENT source plus a press release. A standard BEFORE fails to find WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP. Redirect would probably be okay, but no point in merging to John Wick since all of the text at this article is already duplicated at it. Chetsford ( talk) 02:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect to John Wick- essentially, agree with nom. Redirect to direct readers to where the relevant information actually is. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect Agree with the comments above.
Redirect or delete. Dorama285 14:49, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Amber Air

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

Article on a defunct Lithuanian airline that operated a single 48 passenger aircraft for two years. Article is extensively sourced to company's press releases published on BNS. A standard BEFORE fails to find WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Chetsford ( talk) 02:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails GNG. Adamant1 06:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Few references, non-notable. Dorama285 14:50, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Star1 Airlines

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

Article on a defunct Lithuanian airline that existed for 11 months and had a fleet of one (1) aircraft. All five sources are to the company's press releases. A BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) fails to find any WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. Chetsford ( talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:NCORP. This was not a notable company. BonkHindrance ( talk) 02:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:NCORP. LibStar ( talk) 10:07, 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) 07:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Dry and Thirsty

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

Could not find significant coverage in RS. There are some Google Books results, but all the ones that I could find were passing mentions. b uidh e 01:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. b uidh e 01:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. b uidh e 01:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:NEXIST: I expanded the article and added more sources, including two reviews:
- A review of the movie in Motion Picture News, February 28, 1920.
- Another review in The Film Daily, June 6, 1920.
- " Popular Players in Newest Gayety Comedies" from Moving Picture World, March 27, 1920.
- Information on actor Tom Dempsey in Mack Sennett's Fun Factory: A History and Filmography of His Studio and His Keystone and Mack Sennett Comedies, with Biographies of Players and Personnel by Brent E. Walker, McFarland & Co (2010)
- Clown Princes and Court Jesters by Kalton C. Lahue and Samuel Gill, A.S. Barnes (1970)
- Griffithiana (film journal)

I can't access the last two, but I think this shows that there are enough sources to satisfy notability. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 03:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Most of these fail WP:SIGCOV. #1 is four sentences. #2 is three sentences. #3 is just a very brief passing mention. #4 passing mention; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the actor. #5 appears to be just a couple passing mentions. #6 snippet does not show whether coverage is significant or not. Furthermore, WP:NFILM requires reviews from nationally ranked critics or significant coverage more than 5 years after release. Neither of those is demonstrated here. b uidh e 04:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Motion Picture News and Film Daily were important publications in 1920, and that's how long reviews for short subjects were. If short reviews from 1920 don't count, then there would be no notable short features from that period. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:NEXIST BonkHindrance ( talk) 03:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:NEXIST. Sadads ( talk) 03:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep most silent films are notable and this one has reviews in reliable sources. A film does not have to pass WP:NFILM it can just pass WP:GNG and this one does imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Kevin Courtney Black

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

seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No meaningful coverage to be found. Praxidicae ( talk) 00:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:ENT BonkHindrance ( talk) 02:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:ENT. No significant roles in notable works; no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 02:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete: My vote is only in relation to the subject's work as an actor, but I agree with the nominator—it's WP:TOOSOON. Dflaw4 ( talk) 09:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG. GDX420 ( talk) 12:58, 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 Redirect per below. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 09:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

List of R5 members

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

100% redundant to R5 (band). The band only ever had five members from start to finish, so having a separate list that just regurgitates biographical info already found in other articles is redundant. Delete or merge, but don't keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy redirect Duh, per nom, little of this has to do with the band's history. Wtf "His favorites are the color dark green and gummy candy."??? Reywas92^Talk 02:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect - Nothing here significant enough to have a content fork. Hog Farm ( talk) 04:49, 17 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 keep. Those who believe this should be deleted do so largely on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. As a policy this deserves additional weighting in a discussion over a guideline (which the General Notability Guideline clearly is). However, those who believe this should be kept dispute the idea that this article and the sourcing available fails NOTNEWS and do so from some basis in policy and practice. As such there is not a weighting argument to be made to override the apparent keep consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Murder of Tessa Majors

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

Obviously a tragic event, but if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year. There were 562 murders in New York in 2019. What makes this one unusual? Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

"What makes this one unusual?" Please see Missing white woman syndrome. -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 00:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

So Tessa's case got attention because she's white? Sure. And not because she was an eighteen-year-old who was brutally stabbed and murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes along with her being pretty, young, and well-off. If she were of another race, there wouldn't be this kind of coverage. -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I believe you'll find this one has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, thus clearing the GNG. Keep. Enwebb ( talk) 00:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes. However, WP:NOTNEWS, point #2. If you were correct, every single murder in any Western (i.e. Internet-rich) country would pass the requirements for an article. Why is this one important? Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Some murder victims get more coverage. "Tessa Majors" has over 8 million hits on Google. This has also drawn comparisons to the Central Park 5. Per WP:EVENTCRITERIA "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." Enwebb ( talk) 00:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hits in google might not be reliable. like from reddit etc etc.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 00:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

How about from the New York Times [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], NBC [22], CNN [23], Time [24], Washington Post [25]...This clearly has widespread national impact and is widely covered in diverse sources per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Enwebb ( talk) 03:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete "murder"/"killing" happens in daily basis, clearly WP:NOTNEWS applies here. We have deleted many articles with more much covarge from the media like here. Agree with Black Kite, "if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year."-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 00:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep The difference between this and any other murder, as is key with any event, is notability. Subject clearly meets WP:NCRIME. Tessa Majors murder has made national news since it occurred several months ago and developments on the case continue to make headlines. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. A deletion discussion would likely have failed when the story broke in December, based on how it was seized on by reliable sources at that time. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

There is nothing in the sources that suggest that this is any different from any "murder" or "killing" that happens in the U.S. in daily basis. This is why wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 01:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

SharabSalam, it might be appropriate for you to familiarize yourself with the policies regarding WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY before participating in deletion discussions. The only relevant criteria here for notability is attention in reliable sources. Trying to turn this into a debate about whether or not notability is deserved, or whatever you and User:Black Kite are getting at, is disruptive. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Wikieditor19920, I have been in deletion discussions a lot. Many events get attention from the media when they occur or during the trials. However, wikipedia is not a newspaper, we dont create articles for such events. Only events that will likely be notable even after 10 years from the end of the event. There is nothing that shows why this article will be notable after lets say 5 years after the trials end.- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 01:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Notability is not temporary. This article clearly meets the sourcing requirements for WP:GNG. Speculations about the future are not grist for a legitimate deletion discussion. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

My point stands, there is absolutely nothing that shows why this murder is different from the murder that happened yesterday or before yesterday in the U.S. and why it should have its standalone article WP:NOTNEWS.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 01:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTNEWS relates to either 1) routine coverage or 2) original reporting. The provided sources on this are neither. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 01:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Looking at the article's lead I don't see why we have a standalone article about this. A random student killed by random people and the alleged motivation is robbery, tragic, but happens all the time in the U.S., this is why I said Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't write standalone articles for stuff like this.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 02:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep This is a really big case that has been followed by tens of millions of people all over the country and heavily reported on. Also, I find that it is having an impact on society. It is a socially significant case and the page on it should stay. LaraGingerbread ( talk) 00:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread reply

Black Kite This case is different than other because of the reasons I described above. It has been heavily publicized and closely followed by tens of millions of Americans.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread ( talk • contribs)

Keep per WP:SUSTAINED. This has been receiving ongoing, widespread coverage. BonkHindrance ( talk) 02:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Notability is established and one of the suspects is 14 and will be tried as an adult for 2 counts of murder. A rare occurrence that a teenager will face life in prison in NYS Slywriter ( talk) 02:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

How does a story about random person who got killed by random people and the alleged motivation was robbery deserve a standalone article?-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 03:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

SharabSalam see WP:EXHAUST. Other editors have explained why this article is covered by WP:GNG -- BonkHindrance ( talk) 03:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Ultimate, Delete-argument-death-punching Keep. Statements like "if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year" and "there is absolutely nothing that shows why this murder is different from the murder that happened yesterday or before yesterday" erode deletion discussions and wastes everybody's time, because they comment on the topic, not its notability. Literally all sorts of nonsense gets covered on Wikipedia because there are professional sources talking about it. This is not debatable; the subject ENTIRELY MEETS notability guidelines and has surpassed being just WP:ONEEVENT. HumanxAnthro ( talk) 03:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep for now – The event occurred less than three months ago, so it's very difficult to judge whether coverage is WP:SUSTAINED or not. I think the nom has a pretty good argument, and I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, coverage did not remain SUSTAINED, and I might find myself a delete !voter. But if a three-month window is all there is to judge, while I didn't find any international coverage, the national news outlets like Time, People, LATimes, WaPo, USAToday, Fox, and NBC have covered this in December and in February, and some ran stories in January, some have run 4+ stories. I'm counting NYT as local media; the local media have been running regular updates. So it's not WP:LOCAL, and it's about as SUSTAINED as it can be. The reason why this particular killing is notable, Missing white woman syndrome is one explanation. Another is that this case is very reminiscent of the Central Park Five case, and that is a defining case in US cultural history (specifically race relations), especially in New York City, but really throughout the US. RSes have noted that connection, as does our article. Murders do happen every day in the US, it's true, but it's not every day that a white college student gets stabbed to death in a park a few blocks from a private women's liberal arts college, at 7:00 p.m., allegedly by a group of black teenagers in a robbery gone wrong. That really does not happen every day in the US. The killing happened in the Morningside Heights neighborhood, which is the border between the affluent, white Upper West Side neighborhood, and the very much less affluent, very less white Harlem neighborhood. This case involves class, race: allegedly, a group of poor black boys (teenagers) killed a rich white girl (18-year-old college student) while trying to rob her of her phone. It's a "hot button" story, and well-covered by national media, at least for now. I'm not sure if it'll pass the WP:TENYEARTEST, it's just too soon to judge, so I say keep for now. – Leviv ich 08:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Meets GNG. I agree it may be recentism, so re-evaluation should come later. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep easily meets GNG. The nominator makes no policy based reason for deletion. I do agree this is a tragic event. Mr Ernie ( talk) 11:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per policy. —— SN 54129 13:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Reminder This thread is not the appropriate place to make value judgments related to whether or not the event deserved attention. WP:INTERESTING/ WP:IDONTCARE. WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE arguments need to make reference to sources. The sole question is whether or not the subject meets WP:GNG. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
The sole question is whether or not the subject meets WP:GNG This is simply wrong: GNG is a guideline, NOTNEWS is a policy. An enormous number of things generate brief bouts of news coverage that could satisfy GNG but fail to be appropriate topics for an encyclopedia. -- JBL ( talk) 19:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Quite so, and even within WP:GNG, the WP:NOPAGE guideline tells us that some topics which pass the notability criteria don't merit a standalone article. This would be such a case - it could usefully form part of Crime in New York City, since many media sources frame its significance in terms of that parent topic. — Amakuru ( talk) 15:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Why wouldn't this be an "appropriate topic[s] for an encyclopedia"? Bus stop ( talk) 15:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per SN54129 ( WP:NOTNEWS). -- JBL ( talk) 13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep per Wikieditor19920. Loksmythe ( talk) 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Notable murder case, with plenty of available sources. Dimadick ( talk) 16:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:EVENT, specifically clause 4 (emphasis mine): 'Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.' There is nothing currently about this story that gives it enduring significance. That it's been widely reported on is not relevant; a crime making the news does not confer inherent notability. There has to be something more. Something like the Lindbergh kidnapping makes the cut, not just because of who was kidnapped and the amount of books and material written about the case, but because the results of the act caused kidnapping to become a Federal offense. The disappearance and murder of Amber Hagerman, which was a motivation behind the creation of the Amber alert, doesn't even have her own article; it's a subsection of the Amber alert article. Currently there's nothing to indicate that this specific death even rises to the level of Hagerman's death. It's making the news cycle but WP:NOTNEWS. If that changes, the article can be restored, with proper emphasis on what about this event gave it enduring significance -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 18:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

By no stretch is the coverage that this story has received "routine" as if it were only published in a crime blotter. To dismiss the degree of coverage this crime has received in national outlets over a sustained period is to ignore all relevant guidelines on deletion discussions. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The guidelines in WP:EVENT explicitly state that it applies even if the event was widely reported at the time. That the topic of the article has made the news is not being contested; however it is not relevant for the AfD by itself. What is the enduring significance of this specific event? -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 18:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Depends on what you mean by "at the time". December was the time of the event, but national news outlets are still reporting on it months later. Unfortunately, that's all the time we have... we can't judge whether or not this will have enduring significance ( WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that). It took years after the murder of Hagerman ffor Amber Alert to become a law. If you think we are still "at the time" in February, and apply a rule that it must have demonstrable enduring significance, we could never cover breaking news stories. Leviv ich 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:EVENT doesn't apply to all breaking news stories; it specifically calls out a case just like this one (a crime/death that has been widely reported on.) What I don't see is: what about this case is giving it the "enduring significance" to pass the bar? The news articles have a burst of coverage around the time of the death in December, and around the time of the recent arrests. It's hardly enduring when there was a two month gap with no real press coverage. -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 19:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Your argument gets to "making the news" and stops there, as if that's a reason for exclusion. This falls far short of the careful consideration required in deletion discussions. Mere recitations of buzzwords like "breaking news" and "bursts of coverage" without reference to facts are not proper arguments.

In addition to mischaracterizing the coverage as "routine," you are glossing over key criteria: WP:DEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE sources. The murder has been the subject of multiple in-depth pieces, including in the NYT, which compared it to the Central Park Five case. The coverage in national, reliable outlets has been sustained since the crime first occurred in December (the most recent Times piece was two days ago and is several pages long, far more than any routine announcement. There was no "two-month gap" in press coverage. Stories and developments were periodically reported on (heavily) throughout January.It has been covered in local and national outlets from the Daily News to the New York Times to CNN International and CBS, among many others. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 19:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

OK Vern let's look at EVENT real closely. "Enduring significance" is not a requirement under EVENT. It's just WP:EVENTCRIT#1, there's also WP:EVENTCRIT#2: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). EVENTCRIT also guides us that In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine. These factors are described below.

Impact: WP:LASTING This is the "enduring significance" part. It's true that it's too soon to judge whether this event is LASTING.

However, LASTING says It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.

Depth: WP:DEPTH is not a problem. There are feature stories in national outlets like Time magazine, USA Today, LATimes, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, all three networks (CBS, NBC, ABC)... no major news outlet has not run in-depth (feature-length) coverage of this story.

Duration: WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: We have coverage throughout December, January, and February.

Geographical scope: WP:GEOSCOPE: Time, USA Today, CNN, etc., are national. LATimes and WaPo also shows national interest. Wide geographic scope.

Diversity: WP:DIVERSE Every major national news outlet, plus every local outlet, has covered this story; it's not just one newspaper or one media company.

Reliability: WP:RS: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, WaPo, NBC... these are all reliable sources.

Routine: WP:ROUTINE is things such as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism ... Planned coverage of scheduled events ... Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... sports matches, film premieres, press conferences ... Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out. This is none of these (see my !vote above for the unique aspects of the facts of this case, in particular it's similarity to Central Park Five).

This passes EVENTCRIT. Leviv ich 19:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

OK, let's go over this.

The Central Park Five case is especially notable because the teenagers originally charged did not commit the crime; it was committed by someone else, the convictions vacated and the teenagers sued, rightfully so. In the case we are discussing, there hasn't even been a conviction yet; in fact much of yesterday was spent removing the names of suspects from the article to the point where multiple editors intervened and two actions ( WP:EWN and WP:ANI) brought against an editor. The similarities boil down to a young white woman attacked in New York City, and teenagers were charged. Even if they were closer in other ways, WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm not making the "all or nothing" argument here, we should consider things on a case by case basis. But this argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF which is not a good argument to be making in AfD.

Depth, diversity, (national) scope, reliability: Besides WP:NOTNEWS, see WP:109PAPERS (which is an essay, not policy or even a guideline); the articles published on February 15th from five different sources (CNN, NYTimes, USA Today, Columbia Spectator, and NBC) are substantially identical coverage of the same event in this case (the arrest of a suspect.) That is not surprising, if something is in the news, then most newspapers will carry an article about it, either from the wires or having a staff writer work on it. That doesn't confer inherent notability.

Duration: There was heavy coverage when the crime happened in December. There has been heavy coverage in the past few days due to arrests. Coverage in January appears to be light, due an arrest early in the month. Again, not surprising if you look at this as a news story; there was not much to discuss. It's barely been two months since the attack and we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to know if we have the duration of coverage beyond the initial attack and news developments as they come out. That doesn't sound like duration; that sounds like what you'd expect from the news cycle from most stories, such as routine crime stories per WP:EVENT.

Again, this is an AfD; it does not mean that there cannot be an article on this case if it does meet the criteria for WP:EVENT in the future. I don't see anything about this case given what we know that indicates that this will change, and since notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP, we should take an approach to determine whether the notability of this case is permanent. -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 21:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman. I've linked to other pages about crime victims and events, both here and in the main article's talk page; those all have lasting significance; the reasons are different for each. Sometimes even a missing person's story like Maura Murray takes on a life of its own. I think those cases easily meet the bar of lasting significance. Note what I am not saying is that this case won't have lasting significance. It's too soon to tell. -- Mr. Vernon ( talk) 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Mr. Vernon—the phenomenon of "missing white woman syndrome" doesn't have bearing on which articles are kept or deleted. Bus stop ( talk) 05:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Levivich: Well done. This is proper analysis w/ the relevant policy applied. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 19:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep This meets WP:GNG and a high profile murder case. The article is well supported with reliable sufficient sources. Abishe ( talk) 05:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete and not "murder" - WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, killings are not uncommon, and newspapers pick up on stories that shock. We know why this one killing shocks. Also, murder is a legal term and no court has called it such. O3000 ( talk) 12:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

We know why this one killing shocks. I can only presume what's being suggested here. Any editor who openly disregards the guidelines on AfD discussions, which relate to sourcing and notability, and instead chooses to make wildly inappropriate suggestions about the race of the victim/accusers being relevant or other similarly off-topic considerations should be issued a warning. It is not the job of WP editors to offer their own analysis of events, and especially not in an AfD discussion. The keep votes have clearly and definitively established that the GNG criteria have been met. The discussion should end there, before this further devolves into a socio-political debate. WP:NOTFORUM. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Further, this is not the appropriate forum to dispute past consensus on article moves. WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Wikieditor19920, I said absolutely nothing about race and said nothing about a past consensus and sure as Hell am not FORUMSHOPPING. I made a !vote based on WP:NOTNEWS, which, AFAIK, I'm allowed to do. And no, discussion should not be halted after you are satisfied. WP:CIV O3000 ( talk) 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Really? What did you mean to suggest by We know why this one killing shocks.? What do we "know?" And you are referencing a topic, the use of murder in the title, which a) we have already had a consensus on which you are aware of because of your participation there, and b) the title of an article has nothing to do with whether it should be considered for deletion. And finally, WP:NOTNEWS, applies to routine coverage. It is borderline tendentious to suggest that the level of coverage this subject's received is routine, as if all we were relying on here were a local crimeblotter. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

If you want to have me "warned" because you don't like my !vote, take me to AN/I. Meanwhile, be CIVIL. O3000 ( talk) 18:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

O3000—what are you saying when you say "We know why this one killing shocks."? Bus stop ( talk) 19:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

It's an attractive, young, college girl, in her freshman year, who's band just had its first gig, cut down at the start of her adult life. Now, how long is this badgering going to continue? O3000 ( talk) 19:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I was asking for clarification. Thank you for the clarification. I did not think that was "badgering". Bus stop ( talk) 19:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Editors beliefs about why this has been treated as significant are not relevant, only that it has been treated as significant. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. A good quality source says "Ms. Majors’s killing shocked the city, given that violent crime had fallen in recent years". WP:NOTNEWS allows for the coverage of "significant current events". I think the level of coverage in good quality sources suggests this should be considered a significant current event. Bus stop ( talk) 15:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: This is why Wikipedia articles are made. These types of articles are important. 11S117 ( talk) 19:07, 18 Febuary 2020 (UTC)
Keep Re: the above arguments. IphisOfCrete ( talk) 20:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep sustained and non-local coverage distinguish this event from most murders. Jweiss11 ( talk) 23:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep This AfD is near-disruptive, the media coverage is off the charts and yes, Wikipedia has articles on notable murder cases.-- Pudeo ( talk) 08:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Clear case of WP:NOTNEWS - "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". This murder, while clearly tragic and RIP to her, is not an encyclopedic event or of any particular noteworthiness compared to similar events, nor is it of any lasting significance. The links provided above, by those attempting to keep the article, show that the event is notable more in the context of violent crime in NYC generally, so Crime in New York City would be the encyclopedic topic here if any. — Amakuru ( talk) 15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The logic here is hopelessly flawed. Most murders are not notable. This is a murder. Therefore, it's probably not notable. What distinguishes this crime is national and sustained coverage in reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 15:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Pile on Amakuru! compared to similar events ... can you name one? nor is it of any lasting significance ... how do you know? Levivich ( lulz) 15:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per arguments by Levivich and Wikieditor19920. I acknowledge Bus stop's point that part of the added shock in this case is the perception that a new era of high-crime rates in the city has now begun. I would add that the suspects being of such young ages (13,14) brings a highly irregular element to this case (see WP:MILL). StonyBrook ( talk) 04:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep, obviously notable. National coverage persisting in the months since the event.-- Eostrix ( talk) 07:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per Wikieditor19920. This has made news in Europe and created discussion here, as well. Almost Anonymous ( talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep One of the reasons it received such widespread coverage was the suspects are just 13-14 years old. Only about 0.5% of people arrested for murder each year are aged 15 & under, and only a tiny fraction of those are accused of a violent, intentional homicide of this nature (the repeated stabbing of a stranger). The fact the victim was also a teenager, and that she was murdered in a public park on a weekday afternoon (5:30pm), also contributed to the significant interest. It does seem like race & class were factors, but neither of those things are usually enough to garner this kind of coverage. In my opinion, the case is clearly notable. Chrisz2264 ( talk) 03:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete At some point, some teeth have to be put into WP:NOTNEWS, which other have noted is an actual policy, as opposed to notability guidelines. Missing white woman syndrome is a valid thing, and editors should be able to weigh sources that are simply piling upon one another in sensationalist fashion. ValarianB ( talk) 12:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment This will be my last comment on the matter. A number of users have asserted that WP:NOTNEWS unequivocally requires deletion because if it's in the news, it's somehow not notable. WP:NOTNEWS simply means that it is not sufficient that a topic has received coverage in the news to indicate that it is notable. This most clearly applies to routine coverage, such as a tabloid or crimeblotter. That's simply the first step in the inquiry, not the last. What a user should then look to are diversity and prominence of sources, the level of coverage given, and the period over which the incident continued to receive coverage in RS. I won't reiterate the arguments for those aspects of notability, because User:Levivich has already clearly articulated why the subject meets each of those criteria above. A qualitative assessment that goes outside of source coverage, which is highly subjective and vulnerable to NPOV problems (such as the suggestions here that the crime is only notable because of the victim's race), should only ever make a difference at the margins. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per Levivich's comment regarding WP:EVENTCRIT. As for the delete !votes that are directly or indirectly alluding to Missing white woman syndrome, keep in mind that we are not here to right great wrongs. It's not our place to judge whether a particular event deserves media attention or not, we can only report on what has been published by reliable sources, and reliable sources have deemed this case notable enough to give it significant coverage. Surachit ( talk) 05:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep as an ongoing event with continued coverage in the media. There was a story just this week in major papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per GNG + coverage. -- Jezebelle 20:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Crimes like this are bound to get a lot of coverage for a couple of weeks. This should not be used as a bypass for WP:GNG, rather WP:EVENT clarifies that in order to satisfy GNG requirements an event should have long lasting coverage. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 03:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply
- ”A couple of weeks”?? You mean 12 weeks (Dec-Feb)? And EVENT specifically says an article on a current event shouldn't be deleted simply for lack of long lasting coverage. Do you think this article meets the other parts of EVENT? Levivich ( Talk) 03:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

@ User:Levivich The EVENT guideline states that Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.. Now what enduring significance does this murder have? Any laws enacted? Anything changed in the future due to this murder? Of course, it is tragic, but it is just routine coverage of a murder. Wikipedia does not cover every murder, wikinews does. There were multiple suspects, so it is routine for newspapers to cover each suspects arrest, which were weeks apart. Hence, the 12 week coverage. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 18:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

MistyGraceWhite—you are saying "There were multiple suspects, so it is routine for newspapers to cover each suspects arrest, which were weeks apart. Hence, the 12 week coverage." You may not be appreciating the full enormity of the incident. Tessa Majors is no longer alive but the 3 young suspects are facing the possibility of tragic lives if they are found culpable for the death of the victim. At the risk of sounding melodramatic there may be 4 "victims" in the incident reported about in this article. And the impact on the lives of the 3 suspects may be ongoing. Bus stop ( talk) 10:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per Levivich. This is also notable because there is now in the news a what some would say an increase in crime in the NYC area and this is an example of that and this is in the news for that reason, a poster child news story. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: Lots of reliable sources. Maybe the article was created a bit prematurely, but this seems to be high-profile. I would suggest leaving the article as is, then considering deletion (if appropriate) at a later time. Dflaw4 ( talk) 08:42, 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.

[1] ttps://web.archive.org/save/https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kozhikode/CPIM-leader-Dakshinamoorthy-dead/article14617671.ece

[1]

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook