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) 11:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

No Limite 5

No Limite 5 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any evidence that this TV series ever took place, it was most likely cancelled before the first episode. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 23:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Neither No Limite nor pt:No Limite say there was a fifth season, and all links are dead except [1], which only talks of a hypothetical "next" season. If there was anything concrete to say about the "next" season, it should be added to the main article. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 09:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree with the above. I couldn't find any pt language sources saying otherwise. PK650 ( talk) 22:28, 9 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. For userfication ask at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comparison of single-board computers

Comparison of single-board computers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

There's no clear criteria of inclusion here. "Single-board computer" is very broad, tons of products. WP is not Consumer Reports. Poorly referenced; this will also never be complete or current. Many non-notable products in the list. Mikeblas ( talk) 22:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Move to userspace, cleanup, and then move back: In concept, it is sound.. But it needs very significant cleanup. Would it be OK for me to move it to my userspace and clean up from there? moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clear violation of Wikipedia is not a directory. If we trim this back to only the notable single-board computers, there likely won't be enough here to justify the page. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I think that, for notable board (families) a referenced and well-defined section or article is great. Check out Raspberry_Pi#Specifications for example. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 17:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Renesas Electronics. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

RX microcontroller family

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

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

The only sources are from the company's website, and the article does not comply with NPOV. I tried salvaging it, but I think it's a lost cause. King of Scorpions 22:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Renesas Electronics per WP:PRODUCT. There is plenty of space in the company article for summary information about their various products. Some such as their RA range have received quite a bit of independent coverage (e.g. [2], [3]), but I'm not seeing enough coverage for this RX family to justify a separate article.---- Pontificalibus 08:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Renesas Electronics where it is mentioned. I was unable to find much independent sourcing for this line of microcontrollers. Basic facts about the RX line are verifiable, hence a selective merge to Renesas Electronics is a reasonable alternative to deletion per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 01:48, 9 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)} 16:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Communication audit

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

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

This reads like a class project. Everything about it is a red flag. In the end, it's WP:OR. Guy ( help!) 22:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• comment "Communications audit" is a real thing, and so is "social media audit" (the apparent actual subject of the article as it is written, judging from the references). I get book hits on doing both. That said, the article may benefit from some WP:TNT. Mangoe ( talk) 23:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information and communication technologies for development; this and other articles have been part of some sort of assignment that involves students writing essays and then pasting them into the article, resulting in bloated, nigh-unreadable piles of WP:OR and WP:synth. These topics seem to be notable, but the articles are currently unsalvageable in their current state. 💵Money💵emoji💵 ^{Talk💸 Help out at CCI!} 12:34, 10 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) NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 22:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity

Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Advertising. Fails WP:GNG The Banner  talk 22:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Not really sure how an article about a religious order of nuns could be considered "advertising" (doubtful a WP article is a viable recuritment strategy), but they pass notabilithy guidelines through their existance as an official Catholic order, mention in various news articles, etc. If you feel the article could be trimmed, have at it, but really don't see a notability issue here. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Trying to "sell" your retreats, healthcare facilities, schools and other work is also advertising/promotion. The Banner  talk 01:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Then work to cleanup the tone. Clearly this is notable. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There are books about the congregation, of which the following seem to be the most important: [4] [5] [6] [7]. There are quite a few others that do not look as independent [8]. With a history dating back to 1866 there's going to be a ton of periodical coverage too. Jahaza ( talk) 01:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I cant see any merit in this nomination at all. Mccapra ( talk) 06:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not advertising in the slightest. Religious orders are generally notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • According to? The Banner  talk 13:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Common sense. And the fact you've provided no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Aha, the classic let-us-get-personal-reply. The Banner  talk 19:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
        • How is anything I've said personal? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • And these dozens of news articles. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Mostly about their healthcare facilities, schools and jubilees. And effectively not even a hundred hits. The Banner  talk 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
        • And just like that, you've affirmed their notablity. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
          • No, as they do not describe the congregation. The Banner  talk 20:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
            • Whether or not you feel those sources provide helpful material to describe the Order is irrelevant. They establish "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I fail to understand your stance on this article, and why deletion seems to be your default rather than working to improve it. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep a religious order founded in the 1860s that still exists and runs major institutions is obviously notable, even though the article needs a lot of improvement. IceFishing ( talk) 02:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- The article is not wholly satisfactory in that it deals with mainly with the origins of the order, and then jumps at least 100 years to a brief allusion to the Internet. I agree that religious orders are generally notable. I would make an exception for those that are very small or short-lived, without at this point being sure where I would draw the line. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:06, 6 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 that LASTING is met due to the ongoing changes that occurred from the crash Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Bell 525 Relentless crash

Bell 525 Relentless crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Helicopter crashes are quite common and this was a test flight. WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete a prototype helicopter crashes during testing, hardly noteworthy or that unusual and not notable for stand-alone article. Already covered sufficiently in Bell 525 Relentless. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I specifically took the details of the crash out of Bell 525 Relentless; please review if the detail remaining is still adequate. Cheers, Mliu92 ( talk) 21:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep this one has WP:LASTING coverage. 2017, 2018 and 2019 so WP:NOTNEWS is not the guideline for this article. Also because it was a prototype the ramifications of the crash and it's causes are notable. Wm335td ( talk) 21:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I also wanted to add the NTSB made a recommendation to require FDR/CVR for prototype aircraft arising from this crash, so it could be kept as a precedent-setting crash. Cheers, Mliu92 ( talk) 21:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Please do. I find it notable. It passes our guidelines per my !vote. Wm335td ( talk) 21:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - It does appear this accident resulted in changes to the way prototype flight tests are conducted, with FDR/CVR becoming mandatory. Regarding effects on Bell Helicopter and the aviation industry, Vertical Magazine called its story on the NTSB findings (in 2018, two years after the crash) one of its top 10 biggest stories of 2018. Also, a deep-dive 2018 story by Rotor & Wing International notes that this was a crash during development of the first commercial helicopter with a fly-by-wire FCS, and ties that to the NTSB's found causes (this may be worth adding into the article). If kept, it may be worth renaming to Bell 525 Relentless prototype crash since it is unlikely to be the only accident ever of this type, but appears (at least for now) to be the only fatal accident of a prototype. Shelbystripes ( talk) 22:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - meets WP:GNG and has had a lasting effect on flight testing. I think that the assertion "it is only a prototype" is bogus, as most prototype crashes have some lasting effect, if only to "stop being stupid and never let that pile of P** fly ever again".-- Petebutt ( talk) 02:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Definitely meets WP:GNG, and has had a lasting effect on flight testing. The details are important, but section was overwhelming the type article, hence this was a valid reason to spilt the information off to its own article. - BilCat ( talk) 20:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Concur that this is an important point. The crash and its repercussions were massively impactful on the type’s development, and if there was enough information to justify spinning off a separate article, obviously we shouldn’t then delete the separate article. Shelbystripes ( talk) 22:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I don't think the fact that it was a test flight is relevant to the question of notability. XL Airways Germany Flight 888T is a good example of a test flight crash that was both newsworthy and important for flight safety. I concur with the other "Keep" voters. Dflaw4 ( talk) 08:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. There is some disagreement about his exact route to notability, but there is now clear consensus that he is notable Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Eugene Messler

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, as I cannot find any coverage online outside of an obituary republished in a couple newspapers. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally, and WP:NCOLLATH. Coached a now-Division III football program for four games in 1894, and later coached a professionally football team four a few seasons before the creation of the NFL 23 years later. Eagles  24/7  (C) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I'm finding nothing available online except for the ref that's already in the article. Even if there are some additional vintage text sources that could be scoured for this guy, he doesn't appear to have done anything in his career that would establish his notability. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The article was in poor shape but has now been expanded. Messler played at the tackle position on Walter Camp's 1891-1893 Yale teams that won three consecutive national championships. These are the Camp teams that went a long way to inventing the modern game of American football. Messler was also the head coach of the 1894 Centre football team. He also later served as player-coach of one of the earliest professional football teams. Passes per WP:GNG with new sources added. In addition, WP:CFBCOACH notes that the College Football Wikiproject "considers all head coaches (past and present) of notable college football programs to be notable." While Centre Colonels football is now a lower-tier program, it was one of the truly notable programs in the early days of Southern football. Indeed, Messler's 1894 team competed at a high level with games against major Southern teams of the day, including a victory over Kentucky State (i.e. the University of Kentucky) and a close loss to Vanderbilt. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 ( talk) 00:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Cb162. Note, that point also fits WP:NOTTEMPORARY, as Cbl62 ( talk · contribs) mentioned, Centre was a major college program pre-NCAA DI-A era. He also coached a notable pre-NFL professional team. If Ohio State drops to DIII and "is now DIII", that doesn't change past notability. Bhockey10 ( talk) 02:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment changed vote below Unfortunately, none of the refs in the article seem to show WP:GNG on their own with one exception. The first book is a family history written by someone with the same last name, so not independent. The Who's Who in American Sports sent everyone in that book a questionnaire, so even though it can help verify him, the information seems to have come from Messler himself. The Pittsburgh Dispatch is a clipping of a drawing of all of the players on the Yale squad. The next three are reference websites. The Encyclopedia of American Biography might be a good source, I can't tell how they verify the information. Finally, the last reference is an obituary. I'm no specifically voting !delete, but I did my own Newspapers.com search of "Eugene Messler Yale" and didn't find anything (he may have been on the rowing team which beat Harvard in 1893) but I'm hopeful another qualifying source or two can be found, especially since he was the president of an industrial company in Pittsburgh. But if that can't happen, I don't necessarily support keeping this. Furthermore, WP:CFBCOACH cannot overrule WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 03:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

As reflected in WP:CFBCOACH, members of the College Football Wikiproject have endeavored over the past decade to create a full record of head coaches from notable college football programs. Given the coverage received, and significant role played by head coaches, this appears to be a reasonable judgment. Moreover, this judgment has been consistently respected in AfD discussions for the past decade as evidenced in the Head coach notability discussion library. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying it's an unreasonable assumption, just that if an article fails WP:GNG it cannot be overruled by a local guideline. Messler, at the moment, does fail WP:GNG. He doesn't fail it miserably, considering the Pittsburgh obituary, but I've done several archival searches and this is the best thing I've found so far (apart from the fact he wrote a lot of letters to the Pittsburgh opinion section, which obviously don't count) and that's about rowing and only includes a drawing of him and his name in a list.. SportingFlyer T· C 22:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Coached at the major college (at the time) and pro levels of football. This article looks reasonably good considering the time period. I'm sure there are more sources in contemporary newspapers but it would be difficult to archive them. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• What makes Centre College a "major college" program in 1894? It was in its fifth year of existence (fourth since coming back from a 10-year hiatus), and played in 13 total games before Messler coached four games. You could argue it became a major program about 20 years later, but notability is not inherited. WP:LOOKSGOOD is a poor argument as well. Eagles  24/7  (C) 16:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The question under WP:CFBCOACH is whether Centre was a "notable college football program". The 1894 Centre football team passes this test. Although Southern football was in its infancy in the 1890s, Centre was competing at a high level, playing the other major Southern teams of that time period, crushing Kentucky State (i.e. the University of Kentucky) by a 67–0 score and losing a close game to Vanderbilt (probably the most dominant team in early Southern football). Besides that, he passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 17:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:CFBCOACH concedes in its own text that many feel it is too lenient of a guideline, so while it may represent consensus within that project, it's certainly not a notability guideline that is backed by site-wide consensus. As Messler doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH, I think WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO are the guidelines we're shooting for here, and the Who's Who source in the article is the solitary source I'm seeing that may meet either, if we consider it similar to the Dictionary of National Biography mentioned in WP:ANYBIO #3. Otherwise, it represents a solitary piece of independent, significant coverage about his football career. For me, the question revolves around the weight given to the Who's Who entry. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 18:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Respectfully disagree. This, this, and this each represent significant coverage for purposes of GNG. These were pulled because they were particularly detailed with biographical detail, but other source are out there as well. Cbl62 ( talk) 18:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

In addition to the detailed piece in the Pittsburgh paper, the AP and UP both generated obits which were published in newspapers across the country. E.g., this. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree he wouldn't meet WP:NCOLLATH as a player but as a coach of a major college program at the time he does meet the GNG as Cbl62 ( talk · contribs) and several others have pointed out. Also, the original argument for deletion is flawed because he does meet notability per point 1 of WP:NGRIDIRON. "American football/Canadian football players and head coaches are presumed notable if they 1) Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the fourth American Football League, the All-America Football Conference, the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." The team and league he played/coached at the professional level in the pre-NFL era was a (the) top-level pro league of the turn of the century era and along with the argument made earlier that Centre College was a major collegiate team of in the late 1800s, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. If the KC Cheifs fold and Ohio State drops to D3, the current players and coaches of those teams wouldn't lose notability in Wikipedia 2120.-- Bhockey10 ( talk) 20:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

College football is not a professional sport, there is no reason to consider it a "top-level professional league". You could argue that the Duquesne Country and Athletic Club meets this criteria, but it was a member of the Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit, and that was a regional league and not a national league. Being a coach of a major college program itself does not automatically pass GNG or even NCOLLATH. Eagles  24/7  (C) 20:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I think you misread my point, College football is outside of the WP:NGRIDIRON. Being a major college HC, he does seem to satisfy that GNG as Cbl62 and others pointed out, among other side qualifies on that alone. But even if his college time is debatable, he meets WP:NGRIDIRON alone. In the late 1800s early 1900s all the football leagues were "regional" (even the early NFL development was regional). Footprint of teams is not a part of WP:NGRIDIRON, it relies on GNG and competitive level and the Western PA League was the top pro league of the time period. Even in its decline, teams from the league played exhibitions against the early NFL teams. The Duquesne Country and Athletic Club was the league's top team during his time with the team as a player and coach and cited in the Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit article, "the league's winner of the circuit was usually able to lay claim to a national, but professional, football title from 1890-1903.[3]"-- Bhockey10 ( talk) 20:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

The Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit article also states "The football clubs of the 1880s and 1890s were amateur teams" and I'm having a hard time finding evidence that Duquesne was fully professional when Messler coached the club. I agree with SportingFlyer that the references added to this article are not convincing enough yet that Messler passes GNG. Eagles  24/7  (C) 21:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

That paragraph essentially describes the associations transition from amateur to semi-pro to pro. "Originally amateur, professionalism was introduced to the circuit in 1892;" Eugene Messler played for Duquesne 1895–1897 during the period the league's winners "the winner of the circuit was usually able to lay claim to a national, but professional, football title from 1890-1903.[3] One of the many citations in the article, from the Pro Football Hall of Fame considers pro to have initiated in 1892 Here. Also the Duquesne joined several seasons after the professionalism began and cited in it's article began "after four games...they began hiring stars and soon became the most professional team in the city.[3]" By all accounts, as cited in it's articles, The team was a professional team and the Western PA league was the top pro league of that time. Both fully qualify per the WP:NGRIDIRON and per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. -- Bhockey10 ( talk) 22:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Professionalism may have initiated in 1892, but that only means at least one player on the team was being paid. In the Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit article, it says that the 1896 Allegheny Athletic Association team was the "first fully professional football team". There is also a claim in History of American football that "In 1897, the Latrobe Athletic Association paid all of its players for the whole season, becoming the first fully professional football team." When did Duquesne become fully professional? Eagles  24/7  (C) 22:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Whether or not a team’s roster is 100% paid is not a qualification per WP:NGRIDIRON. Only that the individual played and/or coached in the notable leagues listed and/or "top pro league" of an era. I think you’re looking at this from a 2020s perspective but in the 1890s and early 1900s, pro sports were brand new. If any major pro sports team (MLB, NFL, NHL) was organized today like they were in the 1800s/early 1900s, by today’s standards almost all would be considered semi-pro. Even into the mid-1900s, many of the major pro league's athletes had other off-season jobs- Today that would be equal to a semi-pro standard. Bhockey10 ( talk) 23:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Arguing over SNG is irrelevant considering he does not yet meet WP:GNG (per the source analysis above.) As someone skeptical of obituaries as notability-qualifying sources, I still think we're probably two sources away at the moment. SportingFlyer T· C 02:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

There is absolutely no valid basis for discounting an editorially-independent obituary with in-depth coverage of a person's life. Death notices should be discounted but not this. Cbl62 ( talk) 08:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Everyone dies; his death was reported at length in Pittsburgh (his hometown) and in Dayton, Ohio, and there was a one-sentence blurb in Tampa. Whether obits are okay for notability has been a matter of debate in the past, but what is clear is that people who get long-form obits probably are notable for reasons other than dying. That's why I haven't gone all-out delete, but I'm surprised there's not more on him, especially his coaching career (only a brief blurb in the Kentucky paper.) SportingFlyer T· C 09:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

It appears we have been focusing too much on his football career when he is probably more notable as a steel company manager and soldier. I'm surprised that I can't find much on his coaching the Duquesne Athletic Club, but that's probably because it was more of a side hustle while he worked at Carnegie Steel. He appears to have had some prominence in the industry and became friends with the most famous general during WWI. I have added several sources so his notability should not be in doubt. There are probably several more news sources, but I can't access Newspapers.com. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 15:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the sources Editorofthewiki found - has only marginal notability on football grounds but was a wealthy industrialist (but a wealthy industrialist who, based on his opinion pieces to the Pittsburgh newspaper, was on the wrong side of the New Deal.) SportingFlyer T· C 10:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - now clearly meets GNG. Rlendog ( talk) 15:17, 11 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 consensus that the subject does not meet NPOL's requirements by his current position(s), along with coverage being primarily local. While a more general consideration of the body's standing (more specifically, that of its members) per NPOL could be had, there is firm consensus that CoR doesn't meet the current requirements and so shouldn't be retained pending that time. While a redirect was mooted, that consideration was significantly outweighed by the straight deletes. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Conor D. McGuinness

Conor D. McGuinness (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable local politician. Google search shows no notability and basically unknown outside of his own county. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for politicians ( WP:NPOL), in that local councillors in Ireland do not meet the expectations of an international or national office. The subject also doesn't meet the general notability criteria for people ( WP:NBIO). He is the only member of Waterford City and County Council (32 members) to have an article. He is a member of various boards/agencies/committees that being a member of a political party ( Sinn Féin) and a member of a county council normally entail, but nothing of national importance. Contested Prod with argument: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". The only press coverage is from local (Waterford based) based and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Also, created by a single purpose account. Spleodrach ( talk) 20:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spleodrach ( talk) 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spleodrach ( talk) 20:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I was unable to find any sources that would help him pass WP:NPOL let alone GNG. Missvain ( talk) 00:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Per nom and Missvain. In terms of WP:NPOL, the criteria is not met (seats on local councils in Ireland do not meet the expectations of an "international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office"). In terms of WP:GNG, the criteria is not met. (A search of the Irish " newspapers of record", namely the Irish Times and Irish Independent, returns only a scant few "passing mentions" of the type we might expect for any campaigning local politician. There are two trivial mentions for example in the Irish Times that I can find by tweaking search criteria. A Google News search returns slightly more local news coverage. But none of the coverage is about the subject directly, and there is not enough of it to meet WP:SIGCOV.) Doesn't meet any applicable criteria. Delete. Guliolopez ( talk) 10:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-notable local politician. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 16:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete not even in Ireland are county councilors default notable and there is not enough coverage to show notability on his own. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete - Waterford is not that large a city, but is regionally important. So an argument could be made for inclusion, but I can see both sides. Perhaps a redirect to an election page or the city's article may be appropriate. FWIW, my father's parents met there. Bearian ( talk) 16:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• keep - the article cites several reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I can find no mention in any guidelines that sources should not be local or regional press. The guidelines clearly state that coverage does not need to be about the subject directly, but needs to be more than a passing mention. That said several of the references refer directly to the subject. There are several extant articles on Irish City and County councillors. Article has been updated to include subject's membership of European and regional institutions. User:WestWaterfordBrigade 23:40, 2 February 2020 (GMT)

  Comment This is first !vote from WestWaterfordBrigade, the article creator. As they have !voted again below, I struck this out. Spleodrach ( talk) 20:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• I only see one vote. Furthermore for the future you should strike only the vote, NOT the entire comment. The comments are very welcome. SportingFlyer T· C 21:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

You should look a bit harder, there is the above Keep !vote and the Oppose one below at 16:58, 3 February 2020 beginning with Oppose - Per Spleodrach contention. Spleodrach ( talk 21:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Oppose isn’t really one of the options. Why would you strike a valid keep !vote and not a malformed oppose “!vote”? SportingFlyer T· C 21:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think that User:WestWaterfordBrigade is very familiar with Wikipeida deletion guidelines. Oppose is the same as keep, call it what ever you like, so it is still two !votes. Spleodrach ( talk) 22:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete The subject is doing a lot of regional and international work, especially as a member of the European Committee of the Regions. However, it does not appear that the subject has the national or international coverage necessary to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. In this body, though, there are 350 members with no direct decision-making ability. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - Per Spleodrach contention that subject does not meet notability criteria for politicians please note that the article has since been edited to include information regarding subject's membership of the European Committee of the Regions and Southern Regional Assembly. WP:NPOL presumes the following to be notable: 'Politicians [...] who have held international, national or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office or have been members of legislative bodies a those levels'.

WP:NPOL additionally presumes notability for 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage'.

It does not suggest that such press coverage cannot be local or regional. That said, there is significant press coverage both national, regional and local. Here is a non-exhaustive list of some non-Waterford national and regional, and Waterford local press coverage.

National RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta (National radio station) ^[1] Council Journal (National journal of the local government sector) ^[2] Tuairisc.ie (national Irish-language news site( ^{[3] [4] [5]} Irish Examiner (National daily newspaper) ^[6] Irish Times (National daily newspaper) ^[7] Irish Independent (National daily newspaper) ^[8] RTÉ (National broadcaster news website) ^[9]

Regional The Munster Express (regional newspaper covering the South East) ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13], ^[14], ^[15] and ^[16] Cork Beo (Cork-based online news outlet) ^[17] The subject is one of only a few Sinn Féin councillors to have their statements published on the party's national website. e.g. ^[18] and ^[19]

Local Waterford Today (Weekly newspaper and news website) ^[20] and ^[21] Waterford Live (News website) c. 45 articles ^[22] WLRfm (Local radio station and news website ^[23]), ^[24], ^[25], ^[26], ^[27], ^[28] and ^[29] Waterford Now ^[30], ^[31], ^[32] and ^[33] Waterford News and Star (Weekly newspaper) ^[34], ^[35], ^[36], ^[37], ^[38], ^[39], ^[40], ^[41], ^[42]

Contrary to User:Guliolopez\Guiliolopez's contention above that 'none of the coverage is about the subject directly, there is a significant amount of local coverage directly about the subject to be found in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, independent of each other and independent of the subject as per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This list above is non-exhaustive and the result of simple google searches.

I disagree with User:John Pack Lambert's assertion that the coverage listed above is 'not enough coverage to show notability'. How much is enough? How many direct references to a subject's political activities in independent, reliable, secondary sources are required to determine notability?

Its worth noting that many Irish councillors are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Here is a non-exhaustive list. I have not included councillors whose noteriety is paritally derived from other activities (eg. artists, former pop stars, former TDs, former sportspersons etc.) Ciaran Brogan, Cormac Devlin, Roderic O'Gorman, Cian O'Callaghan, Peter Kavanagh, Charlie O'Connor, Terry Shannon (politician), Holly Cairns, Pádraig O'Sullivan, Declan McDonnell, Michael Crowe (politician), Donal Lyons, Vincent Jackson (politician), Paul McAuliffe, Gary Gannon, Micheál MacDonncha, Mary Freehill, Nial Ring, Hazel Chu and Naoise Ó Muirí.

Notability is clearly established by the recent update which adds information relating to the subjects regional and European mandate as per WP:NPOL. The 'significant coverage' test through the many direct, reliable, independent references cited above as per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG.

Perhaps a wider discussion on the treatment of biographical articles for local political figures in Ireland is warranted, however to move to delete this article prior to such a discussion, given the prevalence of mixed-quality biographical articles for other Irish local political figures, would be an error, and inconsistent with the guidelines cited in this discussion. WestWaterfordBrigade ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Personally I had no intention of responding to that level of WP:BLUDGEONing. However, given the re-listing, I would simply note that the author's inclusion of links to several dozen news articles (in which the subject is simply mentioned in passing, and for none of which is the subject the primary topic), does nothing to address the WP:GNG concern. And the author's inclusion of links to several dozen other articles (in which the subjects are either ex-TDs, or Mayors, or party chairpersons, or otherwise not "equivalent" to the subject here), does nothing to address the WP:NPOL concern. Rather, all it does is suggest that the author hasn't read WP:SIGCOV or WP:OSE. And is otherwise more invested in interests which are external to this project than to reading/understanding/upholding Wikipedia's goals. Guliolopez ( talk) 22:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The sources listed by WestWaterfordBrigade are nearly all local, from Waterford or Cork. There is no evidence of national prominence, and as has been pointed out by Guliolopez, national newspaper searches only return passing mentions.

I had not heard of European Committee of the Regions before. It is a body of 350 members comprising local/regional politicians from all EU member states, 9 of which are from Ireland. Given the size of the body, and its a talking shop without any real powers, I'd argue that membership does not confer notability.

As for the list of other councillors who have articles, this is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, most of those listed are former Mayors/Lord Mayors of Cork/Galway/Dublin which on wikipedia gives them notability. Some like Hazel Chu (first Irish born chinese person elected), Cian O'Callaghan (first openly gay mayor), have other reason for notability. Admittedly some don't like Holly Cairns, who looks like a candidate for AFD. Roderic O'Gorman was nominated for deletion in 2010 by me! The article was deleted but then re-created a few years ago. I won't re-nominate just yet, as there is a good chance that Rodders will be a TD by Sunday evening!

Is there a WP:COI here? How does WestWaterfordBrigade know the full date of birth of Conor McGuinness? This information is not on the internet. Does WestWaterfordBrigade have a connection with the subject? As I already pointed out that WestWaterfordBrigade is a WP:SPA. Spleodrach ( talk) 22:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Having reviewed the wall of sources above he's only really locally notable, using my test that he receives coverage above and beyond what would be expected of any local councillor, which he does not in my opinion. Since we tend to find politicians who only represent local areas in local elections and received only local coverage around their position not notable, I'm !voting to delete. SportingFlyer T· C 05:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per SportingFlyer, as their interpretation of NPOL resembles mine. PK650 ( talk) 21:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• commentkeep with respect Spleodrach your not having heard of the CoR says more about your lack of knowledge of this area than about the notability of the subject of this article. Membership of the CoR in itself satisfies the criteria for notability laid down in black and white in WP:NPOL - "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." This could not be clearer. Your (by your own admissions illinformed) opinion on the CoR is irrelevant here. The criteria here is met and deminstrated. His DOB is available on his public social media accounts. Given we're asking WP:COI questions here..

Do you betray a conflict of interest with your apparent familiarity with 'Rodders'? Does that explain the double standard at play WestWaterfordBrigade ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment. Hiya WestWaterfordBrigade. A couple of quick things. Procedurally first. Once you have made your initial "keep" or "delete" recommendation, please consider marking further contributions as simply "comment" or "reply". Marking each note in a thread as "keep" is not in keeping with procedure. Now, to the main point seemingly raised, that being a member of the CoR automatically meets NPOL and confers notability, I would note simply that:

• The CoR is not an elected legislative body. It doesn't draft, make, pass, or enact legislation. It is not a legislative body. Nor do its members hold an "office" (elected or otherwise) as expected by NPOL generally. (It is, as per its own terms, a "forum for local leaders to discuss common obstacles" to legislation which has been drafted or proposed by the legislative arms of the EU/EC. Namely the European Commission, Council of the EU or European Parliament.
• Even, frankly, if the CoR were an elected or legislative body (rather than a discussion forum), the subject here is not a (full) member of that forum. The subject is an alternate member. A person who, with every respect, attends the forum if the full members are unable to do so.

I am delighted that the subject has been chosen to contribute to the forum. More power to him and the 658 other local politicians (329 members and 329 alternates) who also do so. But it is a significant stretch to suggest that one or all automatically meet NPOL by virtue of being full (or alternate) members of a discussion forum. EU-wide or otherwise.

Anyway, I'm going to step away now. As I've already broken the "don't respond to bludgeoning" rule I set myself/personally a while ago.... Guliolopez ( talk) 00:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please refrain from personal attacks, my opinion is as valid as yours. Just stick to the fact, and the facts are as Guliolopez has said on the CoR, membership does meet notability guideline as it is not a legislative body. The criteria is not demonstrated and definitely not met. As my "Rodders" comment, it was a humorous aside, jokes are allowed on wikipedia but often do not travel well. I have never met the individual but I do note that my prediction that he would be elected as a TD was correct! Also, that is 3 times WestWaterfordBrigade has !voted now, you should read the Wikipedia deletion guidelines. Spleodrach ( talk) 08:09, 11 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 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

La Cuarta

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

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

Article offers no evidence of notability, and is completely unsourced since 2011. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) ( talk) 08:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) ( talk) 08:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, at least from English Wikipedia. I'm not good at Spanish, but from what I can tell, all coverage off of Google seems to be either self-published, or unrelated to the magazine. ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I added one reference. ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It’s a national newspaper produced by a major publisher for thirty five years. Indeed while other papers from the same publisher are dying, this one survives, often absorbing its former rivals. The sources I found are not great but include 1, 2, 3 and [9]. Mccapra ( talk) 07:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I can't blame you for not being able to properly check Spanish sources (although a more cautious approach would be warranted from now on), but this is actually one of the most circulated papers in Chile. In fact it was second only to El Mercurio a few years ago. ^[1] PK650 ( talk) 08:49, 12 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. qedk ( t 桜 c) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Welfare Party of India

Welfare Party of India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable political party, Fails the Notability guidelines for political parties. Authordom ( talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Authordom ( talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Authordom ( talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Authordom ( talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I have serious concerns about this nomination. WP:NPP is a failed proposal. nom. has removed sources and content from the article before nomination ... while there is nothing that prevents this, it means that what has been removed may not be subject to full scrutiny. The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SQR Ilyas while in a minimal discussion suggested this seems to be a fringe party and the party's president claim to notability rested with the party; of which there were three sources in that article. The nom. has done a very much WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination and I perhaps would suggest WP:BEFORE is re-checked as the party does seem to have sustained over eight years or so. I confess to ignorance of India's governance so I cannot determine what elected seats this party holds or at what level and if it is reasonably sufficient for notability. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I have removed only non reliable sources and that all mentioned in the summery. Authordom ( talk) 01:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Well other people will need to waste their time checking that. Removing "reliable" sources and content rather than marking say Template:Better source needed is an issue. Adding notability tags and immediately sending to WP:AFD is an issue. The fact the nomination on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SQR Ilyas was for Non notable Islamist politician rather than simply Non notable politician leads to me concerns, probably unfounded, that you may be a biased nominator. All said however as far as I can make out this party did not and has never gained elected seats in the Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha. There do however appear to be a number of references to the party in the news link in reliable sources: [10], [11] (Passing mentions but 2020) [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] ... Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: While party is small and fringe they have achieved WP:SUSTAINED and WP:SIGCOV over a period of 8 years. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete None of the above references establish WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel^{( Talk)} 12:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete far from meeting WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Tessaracter ( talk) 15:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have indicators sources are not being fully addressed by !delete voters with WP:VAGUEWAVE summaries. To embellish three sources out of many available toward WP:GNG per WP:THREE:

• Ahmed, Khalique Ahmed (7 February 2017). "Gujarat: Welfare Party of India, new player in state politics". The Indian Express.
• Islam, Maidul (2015). Limits of Islamism. Cambridge University Press. pp. 153, 157, 165. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139946131. ISBN  9781139946131.
• Staff (25 January 2020). "Candlelight protest held against CAA, NRC, NPR". The Hindu.

Thankyou. Of course should any fall there are many replacements on the above links. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

And how dancing around controversies is enough for meeting WP:NORG and WP:GNG? Aman Kumar Goel^{( Talk)} 18:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, whilst the article needs a massive cleanup, WPI is a wellknown party. Fringe group, yes, but notable. -- Soman ( talk) 11:55, 10 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) 11:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Asifa Khan

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

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

All sources are routine coverages. She was never elected as an MLA or MP. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Nothing stated in the article is a strong notability claim in and of itself — people get over our notability standards for politicians by holding a notable political office, not just by being active within a political party's internal org chart. But the article is not referenced to any strong evidence of reliable source coverage about her — it's referenced to sources about other people which mention her, which is not the same thing as notability-supporting coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 18:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Tayi Arajakate ( talk) 23:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep She got covered by Times of India, India Today and Zee News which are leading news services in India. She qualifies for General notablility guideline as per WP:POLITICIAN (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.) GargAvinash ( talk) 05:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not holding any position, just being an active member is not good enough to be notable. The9Man talk 11:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:NPOL as she never won any election. The politicians are expected to get this sort of coverage, accordingly our bar for politicians is higher than GNG. Bearcat has explained this well and there is not much left to add. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and doesn't meet the higher standard of WP:GNG required for politicians. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:22, 10 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. "I just suspect" is the death knell for any article. We work with sources, not suspicions. Sandstein 19:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Ground Floor (film)

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

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

like Project Dorothy I can find no independent reliable sources writing about this and the only sources that were originally here were unreliable. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete: It might be a bit WP:TOOSOON for the article. It doesn't seem that the film has come out yet, so I wouldn't be averse to the article being recreated after the film itself has had a chance to be reviewed, etc. Dflaw4 ( talk) 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: As the creator of the page I have bias no doubt. But that said I won't be upset should the determination be deletion. WP:TOOSOON may be correct. I just suspect the film will imminently be hitting film festivals, garnering more press, etc. There seems to be [albeit somewhat limited] sustained press about it over the last couple years. Filmnerd123 ( talk) 20:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Filmnerd123, I have to commend you on your attitude. I, too, had an article deleted, so I understand the feeling. And I would certainly encourage you to save your work or to start a draft article (i.e., Draft: Ground Floor (film)) in case the article is deleted. Good luck! Dflaw4 ( talk) 06:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The existing article could certainly be moved to draftspace for incubation - and would retain the edit history (very important in this case, as others have edited it). Please do not copy/paste it to draftspace, per WP:COPYPASTE. If this is to be deleted, then it would remove all attribution, which is a requirement of the copyright licensing Wikipedia operates under. Waggie ( talk) 22:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Once the film has come out, we could certainly revisit this. I mean, the sources offered aren't even primarily (most only slightly) about the film. This really doesn't even qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Waggie ( talk) 21:57, 10 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. Entirely unsourced; deletion is mandated by WP:V. Sandstein 19:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Rehan College of Education

Rehan College of Education (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A promotional article, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. [17] -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Necrothesp, for your information, it is not 'degree awarding'. Degrees are awarded by the University of Karachi. It is only affiliated. Störm (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

That is purely hair-splitting. It is a degree college. And we have almost always kept these in the past. For your information, British polytechnics didn't award their own degrees either. But they were still notable institutions. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I could to find any sources to help it pass GNG. If there are non-English sources, then I'm all ears. Missvain ( talk) 21:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is a poorly written press release. Dorama285 22:37, 7 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 19:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Laurie Faso

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

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

Non-notable performer, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources failing  WP:ENT/ WP:GNG. Pahiy ( talk) 20:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete the only source is IMDb. That is not a reliable source. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep: The actor has done quite a bit of voice work, most notably the voice of Raphael in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze—but sources are badly needed. Dflaw4 ( talk) 13:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Updated my vote to "Keep" based on comments below by Bearian. I've also added a source to the article. Dflaw4 ( talk) 04:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete Lack of sourcing. No objection to keeping it if that can be improved (or even if there's a credible claim that sourcing is available). Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as creator. There isn't anything out there on the guy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails basic test for notability. I don't find anything other than confirmation that he played minor roles in a variety of minor productions. Glendoremus ( talk) 04:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. He was in the original cast of Godspell on Broadway. I'd like some better sourcing, though. He also has a large body of work, including voicing Raphael the TMT. Bearian ( talk) 17:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Draftify. Bearian raises some good points, so the article can be kept if it's improved. ミラ P 18:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I've added a source to the article—a review of Godspell by Richard Eder in The New York Times, in which Faso's performance is reviewed. There are also several passing mentions of Faso regarding this play in books on theatre. Dflaw4 ( talk) 04:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep based on being in the original cast of Godspell, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles lead role. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 21:10, 8 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 19:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Vem Miller

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Only sources available are passing mentions or press releases; no in-depth coverage seems to be out there. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I can't see any in-depth coverage in relevant third-party sources. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Insufficient coverage depth, per WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep I found these pictures with Vem Miller working with the likes of Jerry Seinfeld, John Mayer, Tyrese, the New York Mets, directing videos, and also directing a commercial for the Jerry Seinfeld Bee Movie (Links are below):

Vem Miller Directing John Mayer: Https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Vemdirectingjohn2.jpg/800px-Vemdirectingjohn2.jpg

Vem Miller with Jerry Seinfield: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fd/VemandJerry2.jpg/800px-VemandJerry2.jpg

Tyrese, Keith Murray and Vem Miller: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1e/Tyrese%2C_Keith_Murray%2C_Vem_Miller.jpg/800px-Tyrese%2C_Keith_Murray%2C_Vem_Miller.jpg

Vem Miller and Jerry Seinfeld on Set: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Vem_and_jerry_seinfeld_on_set2.jpg/800px-Vem_and_jerry_seinfeld_on_set2.jpg

Vem Miller with the Mets: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/Vem_and_Mets_compress2.jpg

Vem Miller in Jamaica: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0b/Vem_in_jamaica.jpg/800px-Vem_in_jamaica.jpg

• Keep Vem Miller is referenced in MANY in-depth ventures as seen below:

Executive producer in Television is a key creative title. He is also listed as creator of many of these shows. He's been nominated for directing MTV VMAs, BET awards, Source Magazine awards, etc.

Also, the issue is that as a music video director, he went under the name “Vem”, and then added his last name when creating and producing TV shows. Thats the confusion. He’s directed over 100 music videos.

All the prior Wikipedia links mention him by first name to have directed videos.

He is listed as the creator of Car Lot Rescue:

/info/en/?search=Car_Lot_Rescue

He is also listed here under director for DMX “Where the hood at”:

https://www.discogs.com/DMX-Where-The-Hood-At/release/3472733

He is listed here as the director of the John Mayer Say music video - mentioned as Vem:

/info/en/?search=Say_(song)

His IMDB shows him as the showrunner and director to multiple TV shows, music videos, and commercials:

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm4290084/filmotype/producer

In this article he is listed as a key “creative and development” producer with a production company:

https://realscreen.com/2016/04/18/nancy-glass-productions-rebrands-teams-with-sweatshop/

Here he is listed as a music video director for a classic music video:

/info/en/?search=Skindred_discography

Here is another mention of his name:

/info/en/?search=Just_the_Girl

This video actually has his name on there as director:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3kRRMrS3e4

Here is another mention for directing this video:

https://www.videostatic.com/vs/2005/10/booked-the-click-five-vem-director.html

Here he is mentioned as the director of another classic video, again by first name only:

/info/en/?search=The_Riddle_(Five_for_Fighting_song)

MTV music video nomination video of year:

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/69818/2003-mtv-video-music-awards-nominees

• Vem Miller is referenced in MANY in-depth ventures. I have a list below which are to name a few (which, I'll honestly admit, seems to be more than a lifetime of accomplishments for most):

  In 2003, Vem Miller directed the DMX video for "Where the hood at"

  In 2005, Vem Miller directed the Daniel Powter video for "Jimmy Gets High"

  /info/en/?search=Daniel_Powter

  In 2006, Vem Miller directed the music video for Five for Fightings The Riddle.

  /info/en/?search=The_Riddle_(Five_for_Fighting_song)

  In 2007, Vem Miller directed the John Mayer music video for "Say"

  Reference: Vem is mentioned in the article

  /info/en/?search=Say_(song)

  In 2011, Spike TV aka Paramount Networks ordered the series Car Lot Rescue, a series created by Vem Miller

  In 2012, Spike TV aka Paramount Networks ordered the series Tattoo Rescue from Vem Miller

  https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/spike-tv-tattoo-rescue-pilot-ink-master-299464

  In 2016, Vem Miller partnered up with Nancy Glass Productions

  https://realscreen.com/2016/04/18/nancy-glass-productions-rebrands-teams-with-sweatshop/

  In 2016, Vem Miller's show ran the pilot for the Viceland Vice Media Series Payday

  https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4290084/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

  In 2017, Vem Miller launched the company Fresh Farms CBD, which has been featured on Forbes Magazine, SB Nation, TMZ, Fox News, and much more.

  SB Nation

  https://www.sbnation.com/a/weed-and-sports-420/green-rush

  TMZ Cullen Jenkins Fresh Farms CBD

  https://www.tmz.com/2018/04/01/cullen-jenkins-cbd-vicodin-get-through-games/

  TMZ

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdGovB5E45E

  Fox News Milwaukee

  https://fox6now.com/2018/05/07/after-13-years-in-the-nfl-former-packers-player-becomes-part-owner-of-cbd-oil-producer-it-kept-helping/

  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

  https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2018/03/29/former-packers-defensive-end-cullen-jenkins-now-turns-cbd-oil-pain-treatment/470127002/

  Forbes Magazine Cullen Jenkins Fresh Farms CBD

  https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2019/02/01/super-bowl-champions-talk-about-the-nfls-stance-on-cannabis/#23b0b4e82995

  Bleacher Report

  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2767742-cullen-jenkins-used-pills-alcohol-to-mask-pain-in-nfl-cbd-helped-him-stop

  Buzzfeed Cullen Jenkins Fresh Farms CBD

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85-tpDB9ueY&t=1s

  TheFarmacy.co Interview that we shared with the press get them excited about doing a piece. We guided the entire process through media savvy.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVwui8xV0cE

  On Milwaukee

  https://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/cullen-jenkins-interview.html

  Splimm

  https://splimm.com/2018/04/18/cullen-jenkins-nfl-cbd/

  NBC New Milwaukee

  https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/ex-packer-cullen-jenkins-using-cannabis-oil-to-help-heal-his-pain

  247 Sports

  https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/Article/Former-Packers-DL-Cullen-Jenkins-becomes-part-owner-of-CBD-oil-producer-118066074/

  Vape News

  https://vapenews.com/vape-news/cullen-jenkins-turns-to-cbd-for-pain-relief/

  CBD School

  https://www.cbdschool.com/cbd-football/

  Project CBD

  https://www.projectcbd.org/about/press

  In 2018, Vem Miller launched TheFarmacy.co, with a party during NBA All Star Weekend. The party featured Kourtney Kardashian, Terell Owens, Todd Gurley, and many others.

  https://www.newswire.com/news/prohibition-is-over-nba-all-stars-celebrate-the-public-launch-of-the-20259456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mframe007 ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. He appears to fail the GNG, and does not fulfill any CREATIVE criteria either. Coverage revolves around him merely being mentioned as executive producer for a tattoo TV show, and PR-stuff such as this. PK650 ( talk) 21:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. We should keep this. It has multiple reliable sources, from New York Times, and Hollywood Reporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florence Hansen ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Looking through the list of sources provided by Mframe007 above, I'm seeing nothing independent that gives the subject significant coverage. Indeed, without wanting to pour scorn on Mframe, their act of adding a bunch of links to Wikipedia pages seems to suggest a lack of understanding of our notability criteria - WP:UGC explicitly states that user-generated content sites (such as Wikipedia or IMBD) cannot be considered as RS, and therefore they cannot be considered when weighing notability. They seem also to be unaware that notability is not inherited - being photographed with notable people does not make one notable. Florence Hansen's keep vote also misses the mark - the existence of links to reliable sources like the NYT does not mean the article should be kept. Neither source gives the subject significant coverage - therefore, they are irrelevant in this discussion. (I'm sorry to be singling out the individuals for criticism in this vote - I don't want to single you out for specific criticism, but I thought it best to be specific about which argument I was referring to when commenting, and didn't want to do that without pinging you.) GirthSummit _(blether) 21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. His career to date doesn't contribute enough to GNG. -- Dorama285 18:27, 05 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. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 15:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Siraj ud Daula College

Siraj ud Daula College (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources in WP:RS found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. [18] -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Necrothesp, for your information, it is not 'degree awarding'. Degrees are awarded by the University of Karachi. It is only affiliated. Störm (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

That is purely hair-splitting. It is a degree college. And we have almost always kept these in the past. For your information, British polytechnics didn't award their own degrees either. But they were still notable institutions. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. I was unable to find sources to support GNG. Missvain ( talk) 20:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This is usual for Govt. colleges in the Indian sub-continent with little online presense. Not sure if it is the same "Siraj ud Daulah Govt Degree College" but sources may exist in Urdu language newspapers. KartikeyaS343 ( talk) 05:54, 25 January 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 Foreign relations of Spain and Foreign relations of Zambia. The keep !voters do not provide significant guideline or policy based rationales for article retention. The first keep !vote does not provide any sources to verify their claim that more sources can be found, and the second keep !vote simply states that the article needs improvement, but does not provide evidence that the topic meets notability guidelines. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Spain–Zambia relations

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

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

fails WP:GNG. there are no resident embassies, nor agreements, nor state visits. Even the article admits "relations are limited and are mainly framed in the context of relations with the EU of the Cotonou Agreement". trade is miniscule even the article says Zambia ranks as a customer in position 149 [of about 200 countries] LibStar ( talk) 02:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep We can certainly find more sources, and this is not an obvious WP:GNG fail. Ambrosiawater ( talk) 02:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:MUSTBESOURCES LibStar ( talk) 03:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep Definitely need more content and independent sources to make it a clear WP:GNG. PenulisHantu ( talk) 05:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Merge/Redirect Per Buidhe, below. Zero reliable sources supporting the notability of this topic; unsuitable for a stand alone article. Yilloslime ( talk) 15:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC) updated by Yilloslime ( talk) 01:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC). reply
• Merge/Redirect to Foreign relations of Spain / Foreign relations of Zambia. I'm not finding significant coverage. b uidh e 16:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge per buidhe. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 20:07, 7 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 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Stars & Stripes Festival

Stars & Stripes Festival (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I have done a significant online search and, whilst there are lots of hits, all of them seem to come under WP:ROUTINE. I cannot find any sources that indicate notability for the festival, rather than as a routine, albeit successful, local festival. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 22:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Passes general notability guidelines, but many sources are local/regional. The article just needs a big facelift. Sources include:

• "Stars & Stripes fest leaves Freedom Hill, heads for Oakland County" from Detroit Free Press
• "Styx, Uncle Kracker, Seether to headline Stars & Stripes Festival" from Macomb Daily
• "Stars & Stripes' promoters 'blown away' by festivals' success" from Royal Oak Tribune
• "Stars & Stripes Festival moves from Freedom Hill to Novi" from The News-Herald
• "Stars & Stripes comes to Sterling" from Sterling Heights Sentry
• "Stars and Stripes Festival 2017, in photos" from The Daily Tribune

Missvain ( talk) 19:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - I removed a lot of trivia, bolding, and cruft. Please add the citations before closing this discussion. Bearian ( talk) 14:49, 27 January 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 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Wightmans Corner, Rhode Island

Wightmans Corner, Rhode Island (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Besides these coordinates actually being in Kent County, Rhode Island (and within the incorporated East Greenwich, Rhode Island), I am unable to find anything establishing notability for this as a populated place. The USGS lists it as a locale. There was apparently the Wightman family farm and family gravesite there [19], but it's still described as being within a district of East Greenwich, not as a community or as its own notable place. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• delete Yet another GNIS scrape of a phrase on a topo map, generations of which show there was never a town/village/whatever. Mangoe ( talk) 23:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Was there ever a post office there? That would help to establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 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. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Madidai Ka Mandir

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

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

Run of the mill Hindu temple appears to fail WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Article has been tagged since 2008 for lack of sources and questionable notability. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:16, 4 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. qedk ( t 桜 c) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Synthetic Breed

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

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

Potentially non-notable band tagged as such since 2008. I was able to locate one single piece of potential RS here, though it's from a local Melbourne weekly. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 21:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, Most references areto bands own web site. Additionally all references are broken, bands domain name has expried. Teraplane ( talk) 22:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Weak delete Delete I could not find anything to indicate notability. Aoziwe ( talk) 04:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Changing to weak delete as per further non trivial references being found. Aoziwe ( talk) 12:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Changing to keep. If you look really hard there are actually plenty of non trivial sources. Not sure why they did not come up more readily in the first place. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep passes WP:BAND. Refs now support claim to headlining their own Australian tour, also supporting an international visitor, and releasing at least two studio albums. They are the subject of multiple, non-trivial articles by reliable independent sources. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 10:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks shaidar cuebiyar. You have got me up to a weak delete. Can you please advise which specific WP:BAND points you are relying on. I am not sure that I can properly match your new references to relevant criteria in NBAND. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

This source and the one I provided in the nom may amount to WP:BAND #1. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 17:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:BAND#1 is met by current refs [2], [6], [8], [9] and [14]. #4 with [9]. #5 with refs [5], [6], [8] and [14]. Generally, an ensemble "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Hence, I think they qualify for WP:BAND. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 05:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks. There is also [20] [21] [22] [23] ... Aoziwe ( talk) 11:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: the first of these is similar (same?) as ref [6] with same author. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 08:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep. I've added the one IRS I could find doing a ProQuest database search of all Aust and NZ newspapers, which helps, but it's hardly the keystone of a solid notable page. Cabrils ( talk) 03:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep as has been improved with the addition of extra reliable sources, weak keep because i'm not familiar with all of the refs except the newspaper ones, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:55, 8 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. It has also been renamed to List of HFX Wanderers FC records and statistics per consensus achieved below. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK ( Talk| Contribs) 20:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

HFX Wanderers FC chronicle

HFX Wanderers FC chronicle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

One season and all trivial. Could easily be merged into the club article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Deletion opposed. Such kinds of articles exist for many other teams, even for at least one example of a reserve team. Examples below:

• OM
• Toronto
• Toronto reserves
• Port Vale
• Port Vale
• Shakhtar

One alternative to deletion would be to do a merge. If you’ll notice in some of my examples, a list of seasons and records/statistics tend to be separate. This HFX article was written with those two topics merged into one to make it more substantial, especially in light of there only being one season of information displayed.

Another alternative is to re-title the article to be more in line with other functionally similar articles such as the ones provided as examples. However, this would make the title rather unwieldy, which is why “chronicle” was used as an alternative. Lucky Strike ( talk) 16:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• • The old WP:OSE argument. I am fully aware that other such articles exist, but as I stated in the nomination, those are multiple-season articles. In two or three seasons, it may make sense to have such an article, but all of that is there now can easily fit into the team article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment This seems to be a valid spinoff article. SportingFlyer T· C 06:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep as valid article, just needs renaming to 'seasons' or 'history' or similar. Giant Snowman 08:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rename per GiantSnowman. Smartyllama ( talk) 13:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: perhaps this page was created prematurely but I don't see a reason to created it now. Looking around Wikipedia there are hundreds of articles titled List of X records and statistics so if we are renaming the page, I'd go with that. BLAIXX 14:11, 7 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) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Amar Kirtan

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

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

This article has had no references for five years, and I was not able to even find this movie on Google. I don't think it's notable enough to stay on Wikipedia... (Note: This is the first deletion I have ever nominated, let me know if I did something wrong) King of Scorpions 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - I Googled the film and can't find any coverage in reliable sources, including reviews, except movie database pages that confirm the film exists, and has a soundtrack. The lack of coverage fails WP:NFILM. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• comment: I could find one review. But given the fact movie was released in 1954, and Internet was not that much common in India at that time; finding the reviews, and coverage on internet is going to be very difficult. But everything can be verified in non-reliable sources. Given the non promotional tone of the article, and the historical angle; I think we should retain the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  nope. Its not a review. I think that website wasnt operational in 50's. But I still think we should retain the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

  I was trying to be funny in my comments above, but later I realised its not that much funny, and not much evident either. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete The internet did not exist anywhere in the 1950s. However we do not create articles without sources, and the sourcing is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: It seems like a very minor film, with hardly anything about it online. Dflaw4 ( talk) 11:29, 12 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. Any merge discussions can happen outside of this debate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Mindless Ones

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are primary. TTN ( talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Just because the article is primarily sourced does not mean it has failed general notability guidelines. It just means it failed to prove so and that it is imperfect. The Mindless Ones are servants of Dormammu used just as much as he is if not more. I found pretty much a lot of sourcing to discuss the characters talking about Dormammu primarily. Hopefully I will find more. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A brief search turned up a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources, enough to satisfy me that this article meets notability standards. I'd encourage Jhenderson777 to consider adding some to the article and expanding it as he searched for more sources, but I agree with his point that the subject matter is notable and the article as it stands now needs improvement, not deletion. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'd request you post some because I vastly disagree with your concept of significant. TTN ( talk) 21:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If it's all the same to you, we tend to constantly go back-and-forth in these discussions and end up just going around in circles without coming to any kind of agreement and just clogging up the AFD. So I'd just as soon avoid that in this discussion, especially since the loaded wording of your request indicates you are prepared to disagree with me no matter what I share. You are free to conduct a search for sources yourself, though I would certainly hope you attempted to do so before bringing this to AFD... — Hunter Kahn 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Dormammu. I'm not finding much coverage at all in reliable sources regarding them. They are covered in plenty of non-reliable sources (wikis, fansites, etc), are mentioned briefly in some plot summaries, and are mentioned in relation to Dormamu (i.e. "Dormamu uses his servants, the Mindless ones" kind of sentences). Pretty much the only coverage I'm finding that don't fall into those categories are a couple reports from last year where an artist revealed some unused concept art for the Dr. Strange movie on his twitter, which is hardly enough to support an independent article. They are covered on Dormamu's page, so redirecting there would make sense. Rorshacma ( talk) 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I'm not seeing anything at all in my usual sources -- Google Books, Internet Archive, Amazon and my own bookshelf. :) There's a post about a possible Easter egg in the first Doctor Strange movie. I think if the Mindless Ones actually show up in a movie, that's when there starts to be coverage about the characters. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I typed in mindless ones Marvel and got some results in Google News. I am not not really very wiki active right now though to be thorough though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Dormammu. Much like Rorschacma, I was able to find a smattering of brief mentions, but nothing that I would consider significant coverage in a reliable source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Sources that at least reference or more of the characters:

• https://www.cbr.com/doctor-strange-mindless-ones-concept-art/
• https://www.nuvo.net/review-the-dockers-fury-of-the-mindless-ones/article_58bf753e-706c-50df-9fbd-84971b1e0a3f.html
• https://www.bustle.com/articles/193085-mads-mikkelsens-fate-in-doctor-strange-as-kaecilius-could-be-a-major-marvel-hint
• https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a812145/doctor-strange-easter-eggs/
• https://www.marvel.com/articles/culture-lifestyle/this-week-in-marvel-history-september-6-september-12
• https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/doctor-strange/259811/doctor-strange-who-is-dormammu
• https://vocal.media/geeks/did-this-doctor-strange-easter-egg-set-up-the-mindless-ones-in-the-mcu
• https://www.cbr.com/powerful-doctor-strange-villains-we-hope-to-see-in-the-mcu/
• https://screenrant.com/doctor-strange-2-sequel-villains-we-want/

Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I think that these three sources, [24], [25], [26] go a fair way towards establishing notability, but I think that there still may be a case to make for WP:NOPAGE that this information is best merged to Dormammu. As I'm not terribly familiar with this corner of Marvel comics, my vote can be interpreted as on the fence between weak keep and weak merge to Dormammu. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

It's ultimately much of nothing. 1. Basic in-universe summary. 2. What seems to be some little indie band, album itself has 10 results on Google including that article. 3. Trivial movie speculation relating directly to Dormammu. 4. More speculation, but even less attention. 5. Just a single plot name mention, not even a sentence. 6. Plot summary only. 7. More speculation. 8 & 9. Extremely narrow listicles in which they are guaranteed to appear because there's only so many major villains to even list. There is nothing from which to even write an article. TTN ( talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Let this page stay. They are notable creatures in the Marvel Comics universe and foot soldiers of Dormammu. Also, @ Jhenderson777:, @ Hunter Kahn:, and @ Toughpigs: are right about their claims. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Minor characters for sure, but they get enough attention to meet notability standard. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 06:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Dormammu. Per TTN, the references brought forth do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, only WP:TRIVIAL mentions. The article is fancruft that fails GNG. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Jesus Christ, TTN, are you seriously still at it with these disruptive nomination spammings? This is yet another one that passes WP:GNG that you clearly did no research on. I figured you had slowed down since last December, but it looks like you are still going at it.

For those unaware, TTN's modus operandi is to go through as many fictional character articles as he can at once, scroll down to the References sections, and mindlessly nominate as many Start-Class articles as he can based only on that. As we have been over, this is highly disruptive and violates virtually every policy, essay, and guideline. Your behaviour has also been opposed by multiple users (at least as many that support you) and you have been warned repeatedly to cut it out and open a discussion at WP:DRN, per the processes outlined at WP:Dispute Resolution, WP:Consensus, and WP:BRD. Your philosophy seen here and here also borders on WP:NOTHERE, and you have been banned in the past for similar behaviours by the Arbitration Committee. You really are going to make us take this to ANI or ArbCom, aren't you?

You do not have a consensus and at least a few of your nominations (including Goblin (Marvel Comics)) are going to have to be completely re-discussed due to erroneous rationales. You and Eagles247 attempting to strawman everyone that has called out the (very demonstrable) problems with the way you handle nominations as " radical inclusionists", not to mention ranting about imaginary conspiracies, isn't doing you any favours either. Dark Knight 2149 06:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• It’s called having different standards. This same AfD could easily be the reverse depending on who decided to take the time to participate. That’s the only particular deciding factor here. You and some others here think it passes GNG (and one literally doesn’t care whatsoever if it passes any policy or guideline) with these poor sources. Other people would not. If you are going to make a report, make it. Do not threaten it. Do not linger around for the next two weeks. Take whatever draft you have from last time, edit it, and post it. This will be my only response to you. TTN ( talk) 09:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• No clue why I'm randomly attacked here. Did you ever file your long-awaited ANI report Darkknight2149? Stop hijacking discussions to get in your personal vendetta, or I'll go to ANI myself about this persistent disruption. Eagles  24/7  (C) 13:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• This wasn't an empty threat, I filed one. Eagles  24/7  (C) 15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Eagles247: There's no "personal vendetta", as I will soon outline at the ANI thread. You just unintentionally shed light on the genuine disruption happening at AfD. I was also the one who has been attacked by TTN throughout these threads, and seeing how you have reacted here and at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Deletion_of_articles_about_fiction is astounding coming from an administrator. If anything, the thread will likely result in the WP:DRN thread that you and TTN have been intentionally trying to avoid. I will be going over both you and TTN at WP:ANI. Dark Knight 2149 17:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge to Dormammu per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 11:32, 12 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) 11:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Amini Cishugi

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

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

nominating again on the basis that he still isn't notable. Despite the non consensus close last time (due to low participation) the only argument for a keep was by the creator and without actual support from independent reliable sources. A search in french and other languages also reveals no additional coverage or sources. I've included a source breakdown this time for others to evaluate.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://books.apple.com/fr/author/amini-cishugi/id1390245392			link to purchase self published books	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrEbDdjhkfKd66Yx_rvxTOw/about			his yt channel with 15k subscribers, while we don't focus on subscriber count, is certainly not an indication that he is notable.	✘ No
http://www.243stars.com/qui-est-amini-cishugi-lauteur-du-celebre-livre-histoire-danna-beckinsales-marie-30303030.html			this is an unreliable user generated site.	✘ No
"Pleasure of the Spirit and Eyes – Novelas Dream Editions", Smashwords. Retrieved August 8, 2018. ISBN 9780463783887			another self published book	✘ No
https://books.apple.com/fr/book/mon-copain-de-new-york-city/id1393140262			another self published book purchase link	✘ No
https://afrique.eu.org/10002-jeunes-leaders-amini-cishugi-un-ecrivain-congolais-que-vous-devriez-connaitre/			this is a press release as per the author line	✘ No
https://fr.allafrica.com/stories/201004270608.html			admittedly i don't speak french but this is clearly not about him.	✘ No
https://www.kobo.com/at/nl/ebook/le-vendredi-de-ben-parker			another link to purchase his self published book	✘ No
https://books.apple.com/fr/book/le-secret/id1455161996			another link to purchase his self published book	✘ No
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/mon-copain-de-new-york-city-amini-cishugi/1128816187?ean=2940155272083			another link to purchase his self published book	✘ No
https://www.kobo.com/at/nl/ebook/twenty-questions-of-self-knowledge			another link to purchase his self published book...	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per rationale. Significant coverage has not been identified. b uidh e 21:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and no reliable evidence of notability. Shelbystripes ( talk) 22:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Not a single reliable source indicating notability. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 18:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. qedk ( t 桜 c) 11:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Lateral coital position

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Related to Woman on top. Störm (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge with the Woman on top article. Then someone should cut pieces of the content for quality and source the material well. But I must state that "related to Woman on top" does not mean "is the same thing as Woman on top." Looking on Google Books (without the "wikipedia" addition given for the search field above), it appears that Störm did not do a WP:BEFORE job before nominating this article for deletion. There is enough material for the article to stand on its own or go the WP:No page route. But the topic should be covered on Wikipedia. For example, this "Discovering Your Couple Sexual Style: Sharing Desire, Pleasure, and Satisfaction" source, from Routledge, page 69, addresses history regarding the sex position. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 22:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 22:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No. This is extensively covered in the print sex literature, not to mention online. I can provide an extensive and by no means exhaustive book list (if you're keen on having an online adventure, I encourage you to look elsewhere too!):

• Discovering Your Couple Sexual Style: Sharing Desire, Pleasure, and Satisfaction at Google Books
• General Procedures: Handbook of Behavior Therapy with Sexual Problems, Volume 1 at Google Books
• Sexology, Volume 37 at Google Books
• Human Reproduction at Google Books
• Human sexuality at Google Books
• International Handbook of Behavior Modification and Therapy at Google Books
• Dimensions of human sexuality at Google Books
• Sexual Disorders: Treatment, Theory, and Research at Google Books
• McCary's human sexuality at Google Books
• Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, Volume 21 at Google Books

Again, there is plenty of coverage in relevant sexology books. Just because this is about sex shouldn't make you uncomfortable enough to nominate for deletion. Best, PK650 ( talk) 04:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the evidence given above; or else merge to Woman on top. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No notability established Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Helios Eclipse

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

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

Deleted after an AfD discussion in 2006. Recreated in 2007 and unsourced since then. No reliable independent sources found to support notability. Mccapra ( talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No notability established and article has no sources. lullabying ( talk) 01:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No notability to be found, this should have been sent to CSD a long time ago. Just noting as well that I am removing this from Anime & Manga as it is out of our scope ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#What topics we do not cover). - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:37, 11 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. Consensus that notability is not established Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Henri Ben Ezra

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

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

Promotional, and not notable. The refs are either mere notices or promotional interview,, or about Snatatchbot. The previousk eep seems to have been based on Snatchbot being DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)n , but there's no article here. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and is definitely paid article. Angus1986 ( talk) 15:12, 10 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) 19:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Dellbee

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

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. No notable works, awards or associated acts. Only sources available online seem to be music download sites, blogs and social media. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan ( Talk) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & generally does not scale WP:GNG. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The subject is an unknown figure in the Nigerian music industry; he fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:56, 8 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) 19:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

OneMillionOfUs

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

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