Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 4: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:38, 4 February 2020

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 February	5 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. 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

(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. LefcentrerightTalk (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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just in case somebody wants to address WestWaterfordBrigade's wall of text. If nobody does, I expect this to close as "delete".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 4 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]

References

comment~~keep~~ 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. Marginal "keep". (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suthee Minchaiynunt

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

Non notable businessman who seems to be related to a notable person but per WP:NOTINHERITED he is not notable by being related to a notable person. Also subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The proper spelling of the subject's surname is Meanchainun, and I've renamed the article accordingly. Try the following links instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Here's a press release from the Chinese embassy in Thailand describing the ambassador paying him a visit.[1] The ambassador thanked him for his over thirty years of work contributing to China–Thailand relations, and called him a founder, promoter and witness to the friendship between the two countries. He certainly does not seem like an insignificant figure according to this description, though I'm having trouble identifying online sources that corroborate it. There's also a sentence in the statement that suggests that it may be confusing him with his predecessor, who served ten terms as the Chamber of Commerce president. (He served two.) --Paul_012 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a major contributor between China–Thailand relations. Also meets WP:ANYBIO, he received the Thailand's one of the highest civilian decorations "Knight Grand Cross (First Class)" of the Order of the Direkgunabhorn (source). 17:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idolmm (talk • contribs)

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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:25, 28 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. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added one reference. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 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 [2]. Mccapra (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 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 Delete. If the article's creator or anyone else wants a copy for some reason, let me know. I'll be happy to userfy it.. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Belgian families

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

We don't have any similar article (list...?) for another country. Setting aside that more than half of the entries here are not referenced, I don't see how this topic passes GNG or LISTN. Some families are notable, but listing them by oldest recorded date seems trivial, just like Foo families by region or so on would be. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned in the article, most entries do not have a source because they all come from the same book, which itself is very well sourced. They are also published on the website of the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium. The ones not included in either of those places are all sourced independently. I believe that this list being included in a book of national importance as well as on the website of a renowned institution in Belgium is enough to pas the General notability guideline. I am not sure what LISTN is so cannot comment on that. I am all for creating such lists for other countries if reliable sources back them. --Brookford (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I would understand that the format of this article would need to be re-organised, I simply took the same format as the French article, which may not be appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Also maybe the title needs to be changed to: "Chronological list of Belgian families"--Brookford (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely incomplete and subjective list. First entry, "de belgique", leads to the article Monarchy of Belgium, with a family who only entered what is now Belgium in 1831, they come from Germany before this. Second entry; House of Limburg-Stirum, " which adopted its name in the 12th century from the sovereign county of Limburg an der Lenne in what is now Germany" They entered "Belgium" in 1068? No idea where that comes from, House of Limburg-Stirum doesn't mention that year. Third entry, House of Arenberg? "who took their name from Arenberg, a small territory of the Holy Roman Empire in the Eifel region", again Germany. On the other hand, there are 1000s of families who can trace their roots back to the 18th century, most genealogies which are created go back at least as far and show some members of the family to be in present-day Belgium in the 1700s. And that's even only taking into account the rather outdated idea of a "family" being father-to-son only, e.g. there are many descendants of Peter Paul Rubens alive today, but all through female lines, so no "real" Rubens is alive and they are missing from this list. Even when people and families are well-known and old, they are missing, e.g. Moretus has living direct male descendants. Of course, they are not nobility, unlike most or all of this list, which seems to be maintained by a rather snobbish group (not the editors here, the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium). Fram (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is incomplete and subjective in that it only lists entries that can be sourced... Regarding your point on some of these families not having Belgian origins, first of all Belgium didn't exist until 1830, and second of all, the article states that it includes families that were Belgian during the 20th century, I will admit that it should be extended to the 21st century too. Yes it is true that many families can trace their ancestry to the 18th century, but in this case, as in all Wikipedia, it needs to be properly sourced by secondary sources. Regarding the concept of a family, that is certainly a debate to be had but until then I believe that the notion that has been used in most of the world for most of recorded history should be used. --Brookford (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you saying that families can't be Belgian if they only entered Belgium a year after its creation? Which brings another question, are you saying immigrants and their descendants cannot be of the nationality of their host country?--Brookford (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Moretus family whose ommition you claim to be because of snobbery from the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium, you will be happy to know that it is listed in the book and on the website under the date 1539... --Brookford (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that "oldest Belgian families" is rather meaningless if you include any family which lives now in Belgium, but didn't live here at the time stated in the article. The absence of e.g. any of the oldest Antwerp Jewish families, which often have published genealogies going back many centuries, is remarkable as well. And thanks for adding Moretus, but the 1539 date is wrong, as that is the year the eldest child (brother of Jan Moretus) was born, but we have the marriage contract of his father, dated to 1537. This is easily findable, so if whoever wrote that book doesn't even know this, then the reliability of that source is dubious[3]. Fram (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion but I do not think it is meaningless. You are more than welcome to contribute to this list with reliable sources. I do not know if the families you speak of are included in the book or website. You can check yourself here. The fact that "whoever wrote that book doesn't even know" that a specific family has another documented proof 2 years earlier does not make this source dubious. I am not familiar with this specific case but maybe there is no link between the marriage certificate and the rest of the family. Thus it may not be definitively proven that the family alive today is linked to that certificate. Even if it can this isn't making the case against the existence of this article. --Brookford (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the marriage certificate is for the father of Jan Moretus, and is kept at the Plantin-Moretus archives, so it seems well proven... But let's look at another example from the list. "1639: Goethals". What an utterly meaningless entry. There is also a "1550: Goethals de Mude de Nieuwland". Now, one can easily dispute the oldest entries in this book on that family[4], but the Biographical Index of the Benelux at least agrees with entries dating to 1217 for the Goethals Mude family[5]. Basically, the list is a minor subset of families, heavily slanted towards nobility, and is obviously incorrect. Fram (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think Houtart suggests a relationship with the old Goethals de Mude family, on the contrary: the current Goethals family of which ancestors never were lords of Mude and Nieuwland and their addition to their family name in 1967 to Goethals de Mude de Nieuwland is based on the arms of the old family, not on a relationship, according to Houtart, so more an usurpation of arms and family name. Houtart dates the current family back not later than 1550, and so I am not sure that you are right in your assumptions. Paul Brussel (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that entries like "1639 : Goethals" are utterly useless and meaningless. There are many "Goethals" families in Belgium, and one of them, according to one source, can be traced back to 1639, perhaps, if that source is right. For another family, "Goethals de Mude", this source claims 1550, other (also reliable) sources go back a lot further. The page up for deletion is presenting one source, which is contradicted by others, as if it is "the truth", and presents the information (by necessity) in a format which gives the readers no context, no background, to judge even what is being discussed here (Goethals? Is that the family of Christian Goethals, Henry Goethals (born ca. 1217!), Lucien Goethals, Raymond Goethals, ...? Presumably it is the "noble" family from Kortijk (because, let's face it, you can't be an old Belgian family without being nobility of course), which dates apparently to 1638, not 1639[6]? Looking at e.g; 1383: Della Faille, I can't find any sources confirming this date, and the very exhaustive published genealogy of the family finds no one before ca. 1400, and no definite dates before 1448 apparently[7] Entry 1587: van den Berg, is another example of a completely random name / date combination, not giving any useful information to readers. Fram (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Comment -- We cannot retain the article under this name. Every family is in fact old. When the 14th Earl of Home renounced his peerage to become British Prime Minister the quip was made that his opponent was the 14th Mr Wilson, though nobody would have traced who the first was or how many generations had had the surname. What is involved here is families with the longest traceable genealogy. Basically this is families recorded in a certain genealogical dictionary, I am not sure that is an adequate basis for a WP article. I recall a discussion many years ago about a British book listing the greatest landowners in Britain in about 1870, a book which when published was a pioneering piece of research; we deleted it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the constructive comment. What would you suggest renaming it? I was thinking of “chronological list of Belgian families” or “chronological list of families of Belgium”. Any other ideas? Brookford (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC) EDIT:You said that "this is families recorded in a certain genealogical dictionary", but that was only the start of the article, but quite a few entries do not come from that book and all genealogical books and studies are welcomed additions to the list. --Brookford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot pass WP:LISTN since the only source for most of this information is WP:PRIMARY and there is not evidence of reliable coverage in secondary sources or independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, it is mainly based on a secondary source, which itself uses primary sources.Brookford (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking information and slapping it into a new format does not convert sourcing from primary to secondary. A secondary source is characterized by editorial and authorial activity such as transformation, commenting, evaluation, synthesis, analysis, or other such activities, none of which are evident in the source given here. In context, this is still a primary source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of what makes a source secondary. This book didn't just take information and "slap" it into a new format. It was an extensive research project with a lot of source analysis involved. As my discussion above showed, it is not just taking the earliest mention of a family, the links between all these records have been extensively researched, analysed and assessed. It is also very conservative in its process. What evidence do you have to say that it doesn't meet all the criteria you listed? --Brookford (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ritchie333 closed this as "no consensus" but at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 14 there is a consensus that this discussion was defective due to off-point comments; so relisting for further debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm usually a fan of such articles but I cannot see how the sources support it. A lot of the references are just explanations, but if you actually look at the others, they all come from the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium, which has a very specialized interest in this area. Other sources are self-published genealogy websites. Lists of political families or noble families make sense, a list of families with no social distinction doesn't make sense. This is essentially a list of people we have records of. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—Мандичка, I agree that neither this article/list nor its sources are perfect, but do you really think it should be deleted rather than improved?--Brookford (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somewhat per Wikimadia; the sourcing indicates no particular notability about this family other than that it is verified to have existed but with no long-term impact. ——SN 54129 06:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the subject of the article/list was what was required to pass a test of notability, not every thing - in this case families - mentioned in it?--Brookford (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brookford, just to clarify: this article is going to be deleted, and you are currently WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. It is unnecessary. Many thanks. ——SN 54129 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this WP guideline, and can see how my actions appear to be similar to it. I will thus stop commenting on this page, even if I believed I was encouraging deeper conversations on the issue.--Brookford (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium does not really form a sufficient basis for establishing notability of this topic.--Staberinde (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The study of this topic is also the subject of Jean-François Houtart's book Anciennes Familles de Belgique. --Brookford (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. given the wo books, and not challenge to their reliability ,there is no reason to delete. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I have challenged the reliability of the one book (not two) quite extensively above. The book seems to be a rather random collection, with equally random (i.e. often wrong) starting dates, and using a very old-fashioned definition of "family". Fram (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given that the list is sourced to two published books, I don't see that there is any valid policy based reasoning for deletion. Calling these sources primary sources is a bit of stretch as we generally trust government generated content. 4meter4 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG and 4meter4:, what 2 books? The Houtart book is the same as the list on the website of the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium, and I don't see which other book you are referring to. Fram (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I won't be accused of bludgeoning for this, but maybe 4meter4 was referring to Félix-Victor Goethals's book: Miroir des notabilités nobiliaires de Belgique as well as publications by the scgd and the anrb which are all in the bibliography. (I know two of those are nobility-related which you won't like) Btw your comment on DGG's post is a challenge to a source not to the validity of the article itself. --Brookford (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGGs comment was about the reliability of the book(s), so my reply was indeed a challenge to the source as well. Obviously, if your main source is not reliable, then the article may have issues as well (since the article is not about that source, but a summary of that source). I don't think using a mid-19th century book for a list like this is a good idea, the validity of such sources is by now very dubious (both wrt exaggerated claims, and with very incomplete research). And that book doesn't really concern itself with a chronological list of oldest Belgian families, it just gives an akphabetical list of noble families (with lots of information). Fram (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Houtart (2008) is in Belgium generally considered to be a notable and reliable source (but of course for some of the hundreds of families it may include mistakes). He is complemented by a series of articles by the notable genealogist Hervé Douxchamps, 'Les quarante famille belges les plus anciennes subsistantes', in: Le Parchemin, lastly in number 444 (Novembre-Décembre 2019). However, some family entries were not based on those but on outdated sources like Goethals and some of them I have corrected today. Also, Houtart doesn't list extinct families. Paul Brussel (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't have much to add to the arguments of Fram and Wikimanida. Absent a secondary source defining the topic's boundaries and giving its some depth, I don't see how this article is possible. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare Party of India

(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: [8], [9] (Passing mentions but 2020) [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] ...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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 4 February 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 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)

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 4 February 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

(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.[15] -- 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 4 February 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

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would appreciate a bit more participation! Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:04, 28 January 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 4 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

(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:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Vemdirectingjohn2.jpg/800px-Vemdirectingjohn2.jpg

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

Tyrese, Keith Murray and Vem Miller: https:/upwiki/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:/upwiki/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:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/b/bb/Vem_and_Mets_compress2.jpg

Vem Miller in Jamaica: https:/upwiki/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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skindred_discography

Here is another mention of his name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Powter

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Academic Centers

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

I came across this article when reverting vandalism. Looking at it after my revert, I noticed that it was outrageously promotional, and started trimming - it quickly became apparent that there was no content that wasn't supported by either a press release republished in the local press, a Google search, or a dependent source. Checking for sources online, I could find nothing to indicate that this entity would pass WP:NCORP; therefore, delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a tutoring center, not a school. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. John from Idegon (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative to deletion, I propose to Merge it into Henry Nicholas#Education, though there is not much to merge. The Centers are already mentioned there, and the only reason this is talked about at all seems to be the rich guy who founded it. Given the lack of reliable sources, I agree the Centers should not have their own article. PJvanMill (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign this center is different from any other tutoring centers. Alex-h (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not significant enough to warrant merging. Dorama285 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siraj ud Daula College

(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.[16] -- 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 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 redirect to List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters. Merger already done by Miraclepine. This only addresses what to do with these two articles - whether the new List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters would survive an AfD of its own remains an open question. Sandstein 09:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Lifeforms Evolien

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

This article fails to establish notability. The main article has a cast list, which honestly should be good enough for a cookie-cutter yearly(?) series like this. I cannot see how this could be considered a justified split. TTN (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger. No sourced content to merge, but no doubt a valid thing to search for. ミラ P 21:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a lot of information on this page, and the parent Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger has almost no text content. I agree that there's clearly an imbalance and both pages could use strong rewrites, but I don't think deleting this page improves our coverage of the show. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Abarangers into a new List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters. I consider one such list fine, despite NOTPLOT issues. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Merge with Abarangers into a new List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters. These character sections don't need multiple pages -- this page has almost no secondary sources and is filled with WP:FAN -- there is no notability. Page is mostly filled with plot detail, which shouldn't be on there as the episodes page exists for a reason. lullabying (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the similarity in the issues and the fact that I see a problem with a relist, I've added this article to the AFD. ミラ P 22:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger, as this is a completely unreferenced messes that fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and contains no information worth merging, and the other article is the exact same except it has one reference that is a YouTube video. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs. — Hunter Kahn 02:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin: The votes make this look like a no consensus, but I've addressed the merge arguments by merging both articles into a draft, so I ask you to redirect both articles without deleting their histories, lest it break the attribution between both articles and said draft mandated by Wikipedia's Creative Commons license. ミラP 02:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reasonable, I support making this draft mainspace and redirecting said articles there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Zambia relations

(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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:49, 28 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 uidhe 16:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 4 February 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 keep. – bradv🍁 05:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Aviation

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

No indication meets WP:GNG. According to article, company operates a whopping three aircraft and has eight employees. Loksmythe (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Loksmythe (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pearl Aviation may only have 3 aircraft now, but it has some coverage over its history, and notability is not temporary. Pearl Aviation is a subsidiary of the Paspaley company, previously held contracts in the Northern Territory and New South Wales to operate air ambulance services (known as Royal Flying Doctor Service in NSW), and still holds a contract with Airservices Australia as part of a joint venture to survey their aircraft navigation systems across Australia. There appears to have been some coverage of Pearl back in and around 2010 when the NT Government put the air ambulance services out to tender and Pearl lost the contract because of its ageing aircraft and concerns with the company. See articles more generally here by way of example: report on donations to the Liberal Party by Paspaley at the time the contract was tendered, mention of the company in a history of air ambulance services in Australia, radio report on safety concerns raised by Pearl, more on runway safety, ABC article on the cancellation of the contract with Pearl, on the tender process, a mention here on the tender process, coroner report article about a death caused by a delay on a Pearl flight, on its Airservices Australia inspection services, article in 2016 about it downsizing, another one from 2016. I haven't done any searching of its potential history relating to Skywest either - which might have even more coverage. At worst, if the consensus is that there shouldn't be a standalone article, the content (which is sourced - though could be improved by the above) should be merged to the main Paspaley article as part of their operations. Bookscale (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The size of an organistion does not by itself indicate for or against notability. It seems to have more than three aircraft now.

There are also these to consider:

There may be quite sufficient to demonstrate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response As per WP:GHITS, posting links to show that there are "lots of sources" is no indication of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confused There is also Virgin Australia Regional Airlines which seems to be sharing some of the same history as Pearl Aviation. Indeed the link for Skywest Aviation via Skywest Airlines (Australia) in the first sentence of the Pearl Aviation#History redirects to Virgin Australia Regional Airlines. I cannot make head nor tail of these two articles and how they are related or not. There needs to be a thorough review and partial rewrite of both perhaps to properly sort out the relationship or not. Perhaps we should be looking at a merge of both articles? Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it seems the company that originally ran Pearl Aviation split into two - one took the passenger services (and became Skywest, now Virgin Regional); the other took the other services (e.g. RDFS, navigation system checking services, etc.) and is what is now known as "Pearl Aviation". Having compared the Virgin article and the Pearl one, there seems very little overlap. A bit of a tidy up of the first few sentences in the history section should adequately do the trick. I wouldn't support merging as it would confuse the Virgin article given it is now the subset of a very different company! Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With the Paspaley Company article. Which doesn't even seem to mention it, because it doesn't seem to have notability on its own otherwise. Since all the citations seem to be to the Paspaley companies site or a government one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adamant1: - what about all the other sources I and Aoziwe have found? Have you read the other comments so far? Bookscale (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, With Aoziwe's nla.gov source it seems you need a library account or something somewhere to view any of the articles it lists. So I can't really speak to those. Except that most of the sources seem to be from either Australasian Business Intelligence or Australian Nursing Journal. Both of which seem to have questionable notability. A nursing journal probably isn't reliable because it isn't really related to the industry. Just nurses that happen to fly in planes. So its not authoritative in relation to the subject. Other listed sources seem to be regional, like the North Queensland Register. Regional news outlets aren't good sources from my understanding. With your articles, the first one wouldn't load. The second isn't about the company. There's only a quick mention of it and there isn't real details. The third link says "page not found." So that's a nope. The forth is about The Australian Nursing Federation and not the company. Which is only mentioned twice briefly in the first two sentences. A random death on a plane doesn't seem notable even if there is an article about it. It's borderline sensationalism anyone and doesn't meet neutrality because according to the article "the poor service may have contributed to the death", not clearly caused it. The downsizing articles don't seem important either. Especially not on their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is the third source. I don't agree with your assessment that just because you can't find a source it is worthless. And to suggest a Nursing Journal is not a reliable source about a company that carries out medical aviation services is ridiculous. Bookscale (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure what exactly your referencing, but I'll assume its not being able to access the articles in the .gov list. if you can't find or access a source its worthless because you can't add the relevant content from it to the article. You can't just cite a source devoid of qouting it either. Even if the source is about the subject. Both those things are pretty obvious. As far as the nursing journal goes, it doesn't matter if they carry out medical aviation services, it matters if they discuss the company in a substantial way and in the article you cited they didn't. Sorry, but Wikipedia articles aren't bibliographies of every document that might have mentioned a subject in passing. So, I don't really care about nursing journal articles (or any other source) that I can't access, read, or use to add content to an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        But it's a demonstration that there are sources available - which is adequate for an AfD. Seriously, I really feel like giving up participating in these sometimes, you do all the research to demonstrate notability and yet come across editors who just can't be bothered and nothing is ever good enough. Bookscale (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookscale: Your making it all about you and missing an extremely important point here because of it. One of the options in an AfD is to merge an article if the topic has enough coverage make it a notable subject for Wikipedia but not enough to warrant its own article. Ultimately its about improving the quality of Wikipedia. Not just confirming your opinion about a topic or keep an article when its un-warranted because "I put work into it." So, its about making A determination of notability, not THE determination of notability that I want. If it is merged that doesn't mean your work isn't for nothing. As the citations would still be used. I can understand your frustration though. Its pretty frustrating to take the time to review the sources someone provides just to mongered as a sexist like Aoziwe did to me below. We just have different opinions and that's fine. Don't let it discourage you though. We are all on the same side here. Also, read my quote below from the notability guidelines on having sources and that meaning the topic automatically warrants its own article. Hint, it does't and I don't think the sources do in this case. Again though, that's just my opinion. Your free to disagree. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are demonstrably sources available, and in reliable publications. Just because they are not on line does not mean that they are of no value. Discounting publications with Just nurses that happen to fly in planes I suggest is either blatant sexist bias or gender neutral profession snobbery. Sometimes one needs to actually physically go to a library and read stuff. The sources are sustained and broad. There is quite sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. The histories of the two subjects need a rewrite to properly explain such, but AfD is not about CLEANUP. Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: Per WP:NEXIST which you yourself cited "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." So its not just purely about the raw numbers of sources. I said multiple times my main issue was with the lack of enough coverage about the company in the nurses journal. It didn't have anything to do with the profession, let alone the sex of the people in it. If the article was about the topic of medical aviation fine. I would care less since that would mean there would be enough specific details about the actual topic of the article. Which is a company not a profession. As it is though, that's not the case. Your free to disagree, but I did take the time to read through your and Bookscales sources when I could have been doing other things to make an informed opinion. Discounting it as sexist when I was extremely clear about why I made the conclusion that the article should be merged for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with gender, I didn't even mention it, is pretty disgusting. It's also actually sexist IMO to automatically equate nursing with gender. Let alone to use the sexism card if it comes up when sex had literally nothing to do with the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are free to agree to disagree. Aoziwe (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah totally. Making baseless claims of sexism, not so much. So hopefully you don't do it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly notable, and it was was formed and started operations in 1964 as Skywest Aviation. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stars & Stripes Festival

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:20, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wightmans Corner, Rhode Island

(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 [17], 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:20, 4 February 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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madidai Ka Mandir

(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

(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 [18] [19] [20] [21] ... 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

(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:

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soils of Fate

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

Apparently non-notable band. There are a couple user-submitted reviews out there, as well as about three sentences of coverage on page 271 of this book. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I come across this page a few days ago and couldn't find any significant coverage and the above book dedicated to Swedish Death Metal only gives the band a brief mention. A Swedish specific search also drew a blank. Mattg82 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. May pass WP:MUSICBIO #5 if the albums were released on a major label or important indie label, but I can't find evidence that that is the case. Hog Farm (talk) 14:11, 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) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Kirtan

(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

(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. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 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. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 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:

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these three sources, [22], [23], [24] 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

(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	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/enwiki/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}}.

Praxidicae (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 uidhe 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

(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!):

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 keep. The trend following improvement is clear. Note that the previous discussion was a keep too. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 20:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cat people and dog people

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

Does this meet notibility criteria? This is filler content on the news media being used as sources (x4); one source is a blog. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG - there is only one study cited, the rest are un-WP:RELIABLE media articles. William Harristalk 11:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per William Harris. Cavalryman (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete doggy discrimination. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is apparently a funny and possibly non-scientific, but a notable subject/concept, as one can see from looking at RS [25] (I am giving just one ref, please check, there are many more). My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article has absolutely nothing to do with dogs, its about people and proposed theories about their preferences. Plus, it is a presentation and has not been peer-reviewed. William Harristalk 20:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it has nothing to do with dogs and cats, and this page is not about dogs and cats. It is about people. I am just giving a random example how this subject appears in books. My very best wishes (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see comments in previous AfD discussion. Nothing has changed since then. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you would have no objections if I were to remove WikiProject Dogs from its Talk page? William Harristalk 06:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat people and dog people participants: Gbawden (talk · contribs), ABF99 (talk · contribs), Coin945 (talk · contribs), Aspirex (talk · contribs), Montanabw (talk · contribs), Sergecross73 (talk · contribs), and Rubbish computer (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Parsons, Christine E.; LeBeau, Richard T.; Kringelbach, Morten L.; Young, Katherine S. (2019-08-21). "Pawsitively sad: pet-owners are more sensitive to negative emotion in animal distress vocalizations". Royal Society Open Science. 6 (8). Royal Society. Bibcode:2019RSOS....681555P. doi:10.1098/rsos.181555. ISSN 2054-5703. PMID 31598218. S2CID 201101638. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
Gosling, Samuel D.; Sandy, Carson J.; Potter, Jeff (2010). "Personalities of Self-Identified "Dog People" and "Cat People"". Anthrozoös. 23 (3). Bloomsbury Publishing: 213–222. doi:10.2752/175303710X12750451258850. S2CID 51860248. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
Alba, Beatrice; Haslam, Nick (2015-04-28). "Dog People and Cat People Differ on Dominance-Related Traits". Anthrozoös. 28 (1). Bloomsbury Publishing: 37–44. doi:10.2752/089279315X14129350721858. S2CID 145750577. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
Woodward, Lucinda E.; Bauer, Amy L. (2007). "People and Their Pets: A Relational Perspective on Interpersonal Complementarity and Attachment in Companion Animal Owners". Society and Animals. 15 (2). Animals & Society Institute: 169–189. doi:10.1163/156853007X187117. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
Kidd, Alison H.; Kidd, Robert M. (1980-06-01). "Personality Characteristics and Preferences in Pet Ownership". Psychological Reports. 46 (3): 939–949. doi:10.2466/pr0.1980.46.3.939. S2CID 144777464. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
Perrine, Rose M.; Osbourne, Hannah L. (1998). "Personality characteristics of dog and cat persons". Anthrozoös. 11 (1). Bloomsbury Publishing: 33–40. doi:10.2752/089279398787000904. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
Reevy, Gretchen M.; Delgado, Mikel (2014). "Are Emotionally Attached Companion Animal Caregivers Conscientious and Neurotic? Factors That Affect the Human –Companion Animal Relationship". Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 18 (3). Taylor & Francis: 239–258. doi:10.1080/10888705.2014.950733. PMID 25257398. S2CID 29608247. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
Bao, Katherine Jacobs Bao; Schreer, George (2016). "Pets and Happiness: Examining the Association between Pet Ownership and Wellbeing". Anthrozoös. 29 (2). Bloomsbury Publishing: 283–296. doi:10.1080/08927936.2016.1152721. S2CID 148180023. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
Smokovic, Iris; Fajfar, Mateja; Mlinaric, Vesna (2012). "Attachment to pets and interpersonal relationships: Can a four-legged friend replace a two-legged one?". Journal of European Psychology Students. 3 (1). European Federation of Psychology Students' Associations: 15–23. doi:10.5334/jeps.ao. ISSN 2222-6931.

Sources with quotes

Parsons, Christine E.; LeBeau, Richard T.; Kringelbach, Morten L.; Young, Katherine S. (2019-08-21). "Pawsitively sad: pet-owners are more sensitive to negative emotion in animal distress vocalizations". Royal Society Open Science. 6 (8). Royal Society. Bibcode:2019RSOS....681555P. doi:10.1098/rsos.181555. ISSN 2054-5703. PMID 31598218. S2CID 201101638. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
The article notes:

Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
This means this is free content.
The article notes:

Negative characterizations for those with an affinity for cats are not a recent phenomenon. One New York Times editorial from 1872, headlined ‘Cats and Craziness’, lays out a portrait of an infatuated cat-lover, differentiated from the more rationally behaved dog-lover. While these ideas persist, studies to support the idea of personality differences between cat- and dog-owners have been sparse. One online study of more than 4000 adults recruited from a range of countries, reported on the Big Five Personality traits of adults self-identifying as ‘cat people’ or ‘dog people’ (but not necessarily owning a cat or dog). ‘Cat people’ scored higher on measures of Neuroticism and Openness than ‘dog people’, but lower on Extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness [3].
Beyond the Big Five, another online study of 1000 primarily US adults found that ‘dog people’ were more socially dominant and competitive than ‘cat people’ (but there was no difference between the pet-owners on narcissism [4]). Effect sizes were small, but again, apparent even when asking about cat or dog affinity, rather than ownership. Since social dominance is associated with political conservatism [5], it is plausible that self-categorized ‘dog people’ are more likely to identify as conservative. A report from the American Veterinary Medical Association [6] suggested that this is indeed the case. They surveyed pet-owners from the 10 US states with households with the highest and lowest rates of dog and cat ownership. Nine of the top 10 dog-owning states voted Republican in the 2012 Presidential Election, and 9 of the bottom 10 dog-owning states voted Democrat. This was not the case for cat-owners: the top and bottom 10 cat-owning states were both split equally for Republican and Democrat candidates.
Two studies using social media data to analyse the behaviour of ‘cat people’ and ‘dog people’ also suggest some differences between the two types of pet-owners. Facebook published an analysis of data from 160 000 US users who posted images of either cats or dogs on their site. Those users who posted cat photos (i.e. the ‘cat people’) were more likely to be single than dog people, based on their Facebook relationship status. They also had 26 fewer Facebook friends than dog people, although they did receive more invitations to events.
A second study examined the Facebook updates of adults who posted statuses about animal ownership (‘my cat’ or ‘my dog’) and who had previously filled in the International Personality Item Pool proxy for the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO-PI-R). Facebook users mentioning ‘my cat’ or ‘my dog’ were slightly lower in conscientiousness than the general population. Users mentioning their cats (specifically using the term ‘my cat’) were more neurotic, open to experience, and introverted compared to users who did not. Users mentioning their dogs, however, did not emerge as having any other specific personality traits [7].
Gosling, Samuel D.; Sandy, Carson J.; Potter, Jeff (2010). "Personalities of Self-Identified "Dog People" and "Cat People"". Anthrozoös. 23 (3). Bloomsbury Publishing: 213–222. doi:10.2752/175303710X12750451258850. S2CID 51860248. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
The abstract notes:

Alleged personality differences between individuals who self-identify as “dog people” and “cat people” have long been the topic of wide-spread speculation and sporadic research. Yet existing studies offer a rather conflicting picture of what personality differences, if any, exist between the two types of person. Here we build on previous research to examine differences in the Big Five personality dimensions between dog people and cat people. Using a publicly accessible website, 4,565 participants completed the Big Five Inventory and self-identified as a dog person, cat person, both, or neither. Results suggest that dog people are higher on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, but lower on Neuroticism and Openness than are cat people. These differences remain significant even when controlling for sex differences in pet-ownership rates. Discussion focuses on the possible sources of personality differences between dog people and cat people and identifies key questions for future research.
Alba, Beatrice; Haslam, Nick (2015-04-28). "Dog People and Cat People Differ on Dominance-Related Traits". Anthrozoös. 28 (1). Bloomsbury Publishing: 37–44. doi:10.2752/089279315X14129350721858. S2CID 145750577. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
The abstract notes:

Many people identify themselves as being either a “cat person” or a “dog person” based on their preference for these domestic animals. The purpose of this study was to test the common belief that there are personality differences between these types. Previous research has found differences between cat people and dog people on all Big Five personality traits, but studies comparing them on other personality characteristics have yielded mixed findings. Conjecturing that people prefer pets that complement their own personalities, we predicted that dog people should score higher than cat people on traits relating to dominance (i.e., social dominance orientation [SDO], interpersonal dominance, competitiveness, and narcissism). Two samples (ns = 506 and 503) were recruited online and completed these measures, as well as a question regarding their pet preferences. Findings for SDO and competitiveness were consistent with predictions in both studies, but no differences were found on interpersonal dominance or narcissism. The association of being a dog person with SDO and competitiveness persisted when gender differences in pet preference and personality were statistically controlled. We concluded that individuals who are high on these traits tend to prefer submissive pets such as dogs, whose temperament complements their preference for dominance.
Woodward, Lucinda E.; Bauer, Amy L. (2007). "People and Their Pets: A Relational Perspective on Interpersonal Complementarity and Attachment in Companion Animal Owners". Society and Animals. 15 (2). Animals & Society Institute: 169–189. doi:10.1163/156853007X187117. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
The article notes:

Despite a dearth of scientific theory or evidence to support their beliefs, pet owners—on an intuitive level—frequently categorize themselves as either “cat people” or “dog people.” Those personality characteristics that distinguish these two categories of companion animal attachment, however, remain vague and ill-defined.
...
Hypothesis 1. Dogs will be perceived by their owners as less hostile/more friendly and more submissive/less dominant across octant scores than cats, whereas people who identify dogs as their ideal pet (dog people) will self-report as less hostile/more friendly and less submissive/more dominant across octant scores than people who identify cats as their ideal pet (cat people).
Hypothesis 2. There will be greater reported interpersonal complementarity between self-identified “dog people” and their dogs (versus cats) and greater reported interpersonal complementarity between self-identified “cat people” and their cats (versus dogs).
The article notes:
Dog and cat people differed in their interpersonal characteristics in a complementary fashion to their interpersonal perceptions of dogs and cats as companion animals. Findings revealed that those who reported that dogs were their ideal pet were significantly less hostile (F (1, 219) = 3.58, p < .04; Ms = –.62 and –.51, SDs = .35 and .43, respectively) and tended to be less submissive (F (1, 219) = 4.35, p < .06; Ms = –.20 and –.13, SDs = .32 and .33, respectively) than those who reported that cats were their ideal pet (although the latter relationship did not reach traditional significance). A t-test (using Bonferroni correction) on mean scores for the octant reflecting hostility revealed that this difference achieved significance for dog people and cat people (t (219) = 2.07, p < .04).
Kidd, Alison H.; Kidd, Robert M. (1980-06-01). "Personality Characteristics and Preferences in Pet Ownership". Psychological Reports. 46 (3): 939–949. doi:10.2466/pr0.1980.46.3.939. S2CID 144777464. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
The abstract notes:

The possibilities for matching pets to owners' personality-types for physical and psycho-social benefits were explored. It was hypothesized that self-identified dog- and cat-lovers would show significant differences on the autonomy, dominance, nurturance, and aggression scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Test. 223 adults completed an experimenter-designed questionnaire and all of the specific Edwards Schedule A questions. An analysis of variance was applied to the scale scores transformed into standardized T scores for each of the Edwards scales. The Scheffé test showed that male cat-lovers were higher and all pet-lovers were lower in autonomy, that male pet- and dog-lovers were higher and female cat-lovers were lower in dominance, that female pet-lovers were higher and all cat-lovers were lower in nurturance, and that male dog-lovers were higher and female dog- and cat-lovers were lower in aggression. The demonstrated differences in owner personality should facilitate matching pets and people to maximize the physical and psycho-social therapeutic benefits of pet ownership.
Perrine, Rose M.; Osbourne, Hannah L. (1998). "Personality characteristics of dog and cat persons". Anthrozoös. 11 (1). Bloomsbury Publishing: 33–40. doi:10.2752/089279398787000904. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
The abstract notes:

Explored personality differences between self-labelled dog persons and cat persons as a function of pet ownership. 126 participants (aged 18–52 yrs) identified themselves as either a dog person, cat person, both, or neither, and rated their own masculinity, femininity, independence, dominance, and athleticism. Participants also read a description of a person who was labelled as either a dog or cat person, and rated this person on these same personality characteristics. Results show that females were more likely to label themselves as cat persons than were males. Quality of past experience with dogs and cats was related to current ownership of dogs and cats. There were no personality differences between dog/cat owners vs nonowners. However, there were personality differences between self-labelled dog vs cat persons. Others attributed different personality characteristics to dog vs cat persons, often as a function of gender. The real vs perceived differences in personality were not the same.
Reevy, Gretchen M.; Delgado, Mikel (2014). "Are Emotionally Attached Companion Animal Caregivers Conscientious and Neurotic? Factors That Affect the Human –Companion Animal Relationship". Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 18 (3). Taylor & Francis: 239–258. doi:10.1080/10888705.2014.950733. PMID 25257398. S2CID 29608247. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
The article notes:

Few studies have examined how personality traits may be related to the amounts and types of attachments humans have toward companion animals (pets). In this study, 1,098 companion animal guardians (owners) completed a survey that included the Big Five Inventory, the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale, and the Pet Attachment Questionnaire. Each participant chose whether he or she identified as a Cat Person, Dog Person, Both, or Neither. Results indicated that neuroticism, conscientiousness, choosing a dog as a favorite pet, and identifying as a Cat Person, Dog Person, or Both predicted affection for a pet. Conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness decreased avoidant attachment to pets, and neuroticism increased anxious attachment to pets. Both dogs and cats could benefit from pet owners who are conscientious, and there may be some benefits of neuroticismin pet owners. The findings ofthis study will advance understanding of the human–animal bond. As this understanding increases, measurements of human attachment and personality may be useful for the development of tools that could assist shelter employees and veterinarians in counseling people about pet ownership.
The article notes:
The current study was designed to better understand attachment to/feelings for one’s pet and individual differences in identification with, attachment to, and feelings toward different types of pets. Specifically, the research goals of the current study involved investigating the following: (1) whether individuals who self-identify as a “cat person,” “dog person,” “both cat and dog person,” or “neither cat nor dog person” differ in (a) personality traits and (b) attachments to and other affective feelings toward their pets; (2) how personality is related to attachment to or feelings toward one’s pet; and (3) which variables best predict (a) affective feelings toward one’s pet as measured by the LAPS, (b) avoidant attachment to one’s pet as measured by the PAQ Avoidance Scale, and (c) anxious attachment to one’s pet as measured by the PAQ Anxiety Scale.
Bao, Katherine Jacobs Bao; Schreer, George (2016). "Pets and Happiness: Examining the Association between Pet Ownership and Wellbeing". Anthrozoös. 29 (2). Bloomsbury Publishing: 283–296. doi:10.1080/08927936.2016.1152721. S2CID 148180023. Retrieved 2020-02-09.
The article notes:

Comparing “Dog People” and “Cat People”

Next, we repeated the above analyses, but compared self-declared “dog people” and “cat people,” rather than those who reported owning a cat or dog. When asked whether they were a “cat person” or a “dog person,” 51 people (30%) chose “cat person,” 57 people (34%) chose “dog person,” 58 people (34%) chose “both,” and 3 people (2%) chose “neither.” We excluded those participants who answered “both” or “neither” for the following analyses. The findings were similar to those above, but fewer reached the significance threshold. There were no significant differences between cat and dog people in satisfaction with life or positive emotions, but dog people were marginally higher in happiness, and cat people were significantly higher in negative emotions (see Table 2, right side). Similarly, fewer differences were found in personality traits when comparing cat and dog people than when comparing cat and dog owners.
...
... Dog people humanized their pets more than cat people, and humanizing one’s pet predicted higher levels of positive emotion.
Smokovic, Iris; Fajfar, Mateja; Mlinaric, Vesna (2012). "Attachment to pets and interpersonal relationships: Can a four-legged friend replace a two-legged one?". Journal of European Psychology Students. 3 (1). European Federation of Psychology Students' Associations: 15–23. doi:10.5334/jeps.ao. ISSN 2222-6931.
The article notes:

This article is published by the European Federation of Psychology Students’ Associations under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
This means this is free content.
The article notes:

Because dogs and cats comprise the vast majority of animals kept as pets, instruments for assessing attachment primarily reflect the types of interactions possible with these two species. A study of pet attachment in the general population reported no differences between dog owners and cat owners, although dog owners and cat owners as individual groups scored significantly higher than owners of other pets (Vizek Vidoviæ, Vlahoviæ Stetiæ, & Bratko, 1999). Other previous studies (Zasloff, 1996; Winefield, Black, & Chur-Hansen, 2008) showed that dog owners are more attached to their pets than cat owners. Those results could be a consequence of the fact that in pet attachment instruments, some items only described activities typical of dogs. When items more descriptive of dog behavior were eliminated, dog owners and cat owners showed similar scores on the Comfort from Companion Animals Scale (CCAS; Zasloff, 1996). Winefield et al. (2008) reached similar conclusions – on a scale measuring the emotional aspect of the owner-pet relationship there were no significant differences between cat owners and dog owners. Notably, the alternative explanation of emerging differences on pet attachment scales between cat owners and dog owners, which claims that cat owners and dog owners have different personalities or expectations of their pet is contradicted in Serpell's research (1996), where participants showed no differences in describing the ideal pet despite whether if they described a dog or a cat. Conversely, Serpell (1996) found differences in cat and dog behavior – he describes cats as more unpredictable and distrustful. Other authors like Valentinèiè (2003) note that dogs demand more individual care than other companion animals.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow cat people and dog people to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST, thanks to sources in the article and those provided by Cunard. I put the most relevant of Cunard's sources in the article's "Further reading" section to help people who want to expand the article. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename Cat people versus dog people. There's lots of coverage of the differences. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 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 delete. No notability established Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helios Eclipse

(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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Posture

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

Fails WP:GNG. Related to Missionary position. Störm (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini College of Computer Sciences

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

This article is unsourced, orphaned, and non-notable. I couldn't find any secondary sources on the Internet, all I found was primary. This article also seems unnecessarily promotional. Puddleglum ^2.0 19:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Per nom. Likely promotional, couldn't find any secondary source either so most probably fails WP:GNG Tayi Arajakate (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:36, 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. Consensus that notability is not established Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Ben Ezra

AfDs for this article:

(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

(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 Move to draft. Even the "keep" opinions admit a significant rewrite is needed before this is ready for mainspace, what with gems of prose such as "Balaja Abdurrahmanov was a broad-based scientist. He was truly a legendary man, a great scientist, a personality and always stood his ground." As to notability there is no consensus at this time. Sandstein 20:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balaja Abdurrahmanov

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

Something off here. Great and famous as he is made out here, does not pop on G-Books or Scholar. Inflated? Hyperbolick (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - it's hard to tell what we have going on here. One thing is clear - the language is either a poor translation, or just poor. There are no inline citations, just citations pertaining to each section. I say this should be taken to the Draft/sandbox space until it is ready. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up/stubify. He has an entry in Azerbaijan National Encyclopedia. I would remove most of it since the minutiae is excessive. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and passed Russian and Azerbaijani Wikipedias, but a significant rewrite will be needed. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete: the Azerbaiijani encyclopedia entry is only a few lines; it doesn't seem authoritative in the way that an entry in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography would be. Lack of online presence could be old scholarship that hasn't been scanned in, but it could also be great inflation of the record of a nn academic. b uidhe 18:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. BD2412 T 00:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaël Duval

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

It has been tagged as autobiography and primary sources, since October 2019. On the Talk Kstone999 said "It looks like a WP:BLP1E case of WP:LOWPROFILE and appears as a WP:RESUME that simply outlines his professional history without any significant coverage" It was edited a lot by Caliwing, aka Indidea, confirmed promotional sockpuppets. (Sockpuppet Investigations) Most sources are either self-published, primary (indidea.org, and e.foundation), about a few projects he was involved with, interviews of other people, short mentions (e.g. of his firing from Mandriva), or not reliable (i.e. TGDaily). I note that sock and meat puppetry was a concern at [26] where both Caliwing and Indidea participated, and may be expected here. Yae4 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Yae4 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to actually start enforcing our no autobiographies rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with John, and I'd add that the noteworthy information about Duval (re. his contributions to the software industry) is already included in the Mandriva Linux article. Perhaps a redirect might be appropriate, but I'm leaning towards delete altogether. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient to be considered significant per the GNG. Note articles such as this one in Le Monde, a French newspaper of record which is about him exclusively. He is particularly notable within France and the French press ~~[27], [28], etc~~. Yes, most English language media talk about him in reference to his software contributions, but this isn't an Anglocentric encyclopedia. The French coverage plus all the other coverage combined, considering his significant impact in the industry, should be enough for a decent notability claim. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PK650: You've confused or combined two Gael Duvals: Two sources for the wrong one, associated with JeChange and Touch Conference, and one source for the one associated with Mandrake and eelo aka e. The LeMonde source is really mostly another rehash of Mandrake and /e OS, and that author's list of articles has all appearances of being a Tech blog, similar to what we don't give much credit from Forbes or the Guardian. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about there being two people! Funny. You couldn't possibly argue Le Monde is not a reliable source, however. So the argument still stands. I didn't delve into the author's details, but the editorial integrity of the publication cannot be questioned in the manner you're implying. Not considering this as valid sigcov would be a double standard. PK650 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in the following reliable sources: — Newslinger talk 09:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gaël Duval, l’adepte de Linux qui veut libérer les smartphones" from Le Monde
- "20 ans après Mandrake Linux, Gaël Duval présente son nouveau projet : Eelo, le smartphone libre" from Numerama

This article was created in 2004, while the earliest of the named accounts was created in 2013. — Newslinger talk 09:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger:This 2004 article start was written by someone who knew all about Duval and his homepages, and used ZERO sources. LeMonde and Numerama sources are really all about /e and Mandrake, not about Duval. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from Le Monde and Numerama also cover Duval's personal life, personal experiences, and personal motivations for developing these projects. The subject of these articles is Duval, and the coverage spans both of his projects (Mandriva Linux and /e/) as well as personal information about Duval that would be out the product articles' respective scopes. Products are not "events", and in any case, Duval developed two notable products, not one. Duval is also not a low-profile individual, as he has given interviews to notable publications including The Register (RSP entry) and BGR (Boy Genius Report), in addition to all of the news coverage cited in the Mandriva Linux and /e/ (operating system) articles that include Duval's name. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those sources present more info' about the projects than about Duval. It's embarrassing for Wikipedia that the article has been a resume for nearly 16 years. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These articles present sufficient information about Duval himself to merit an article for him. For example, Le Monde details Duval's early life and Numerama covers why Duval transitioned from working on Mandriva Linux to /e/. Duval has two notable projects, and we don't exclude people from having biographies because their creations are notable. AfD discussions focus on the existence of reliable sources, rather than the present or past content in the article. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Numerama. In a different context, I believe you'd agree the site is a click bait, team-blog site, masquerading as a news site (i.e. non-reliable). [29] (though it does list an editor in chief). There was non-consensus on reliability in previous discussion.[30] Did you see the Vroom section at Numerama (similar to cars.com)?

Re: "two notable projects". The French wikipedia article on Mandriva[31] gives equal credit to Frédéric Bastok et Jacques Le Marois as well, for Mandrake business. This is confirmed by the Le Monde article. So, it does support some change to the english Mandriva articles (which should probably be merged), but that's only one and a fraction projects. In fairness, there's also Ulteo and Ulteo Open Virtual Desktop - two more Duval-involved articles for one more project advertised on Wikipedia, but they also have marginal sourcing, should be merged, and at least one was also self-edited.

Re Mandriva Linux sources. Those sources are almost entirely after 2006 after Duval was fired.

As said earlier, I believe the Le Monde article being discussed here is of blog quality, with less editorial oversight than other articles. The following, to me, is an indicator. The Le Monde article [32] author's (Bastien Lion) contributions are listed under the following

https://www.lemonde.fr/signataires/bastien-lion/

Note the URL difference in the following list of articles:

https://www.lemonde.fr/signataires/pixels/

Taking an example from that list, regarding Zuckerberg [33], Note that it is authored, "Par Pixels". This indicates to me it is considered more a publication of Le Monde. Other "Pixels" articles are attributed to individual authors, and it looks like this is consistent with less editorial oversight. Last, while it gives some personal detail, it's mostly about the projects, not the person, IMO. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable not just as the initiator of a major Linux distro. The sources seem good enough to pass GNG. --Slashme (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete, in case the AfD wasn't a clear vote). It's difficult to find non-primary sources for any details about Duval himself. Only projects are detailed in secondary sources, and he's the spokesman for the project(s). -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's non-standard for article nominators to submit a separate bolded delete !vote, since the nomination is assumed to be in favor of deletion unless you specify otherwise. — Newslinger talk 01:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The initial comment was mostly repeating what Kstone999 said before. I saw it as looking for more opinions, and I hadn't yet fully made up my mind, until I saw how weak the "Keep" arguments are, so I wanted to make my position clear. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate delete !votes run the risk of being misinterpreted as duplicate !votes. As mentioned in WP:AFDFORMAT, "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this." — Newslinger talk 01:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if this were high enough profile to get many votes it would "run a risk." Anyway, sorry for missing the rule; it's been unbolded and notated. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 29 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

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

I don't see any evidence of meeting WP:Notability on my own. Only one of the sources listed in the article, this one, gives any independent coverage. The rest are either instances of it being included in a list of organizations; articles about Jerome Foster describing him as "founder and executive director of" with no further attention to the organization; and one interview in which Foster himself is the person talking about the organization. Largoplazo (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article cites to every website that mentions the organization - from what I can tell, none of the articles discuss this organization in any depth (just mentions the org in passing or says x, founder of OneMillionOfUs, without anything more). As there is no in depth coverage in reliable sources, I don't see how this passes our notability threshold. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above comments. Scant coverage, and what exists isn't exclusively about the organization. In fact, most of the articles are about the founders, or those where the organization is merely listed among others. PK650 (talk) 04:40, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zakariya Naimat

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

Fails WP:SCHOLAR per Google Scholar and the lack on news coverage. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was unable to find any independent coverage, and he's unlisted on Google Scholar. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A current PhD student is not going to meet WP:NPROF except in exceptional circumstances. And I see no signs of GNG, and the article makes no assertion of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:MILL. Absent extraordinary research or a discovery that garners headlines, we never keep graduate students, almost never assistant professors, and rarely even tenured associate professors. Almost every grad student has gotten a scholarship or fellowship - I've had one of each, too, but I'm not notable. We are not a resume service for students. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Davis

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

Appears to be a non-notable individual per WP:NACTOR. I can't find any sourcing in WP:RS and the extant sources are imdb and Allmovie. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject easily passes WP:NACTOR, in my opinion, and is discussed and mentioned in many articles online, including Variety articles. True, there are no sources currently cited on the subject's page, but sources do exist. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflaw4: - would you please share those references? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here is what I found:

https://variety.com/2004/film/markets-festivals/paparazzi-3-1200531304/ -- review of Paparazzi film, mere mention
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=RxHbPxbBM1AC&pg=PP339&lpg=PP339&dq=%22Duane+Davis%22+actor+variety&source=bl&ots=AWZYHgX5BZ&sig=ACfU3U2edhadrP44_Hd4CWhPa8-RuI96pQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPxqfc27vnAhV56XMBHV0bAAMQ6AEwC3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Duane%20Davis%22%20actor%20variety&f=false – review of Final Shot: The Hank Gathers Story film, brief review of Davis’ performance
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=PS1g1rnX7rsC&pg=PR318&lpg=PR318&dq=%22Duane+Davis%22+actor+%22variety%22&source=bl&ots=0oh_dTdBF6&sig=ACfU3U0EGrTXVb48fyDfHbVwDwFVJVHT3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtqJqw3LvnAhWR4HMBHXrsAEQQ6AEwDHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Duane%20Davis%22%20actor%20%22variety%22&f=false -- review of Past Tense film, mere mention
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/21/archives/stage-scrooge-struts-in-comin-uptown-dickens-relived.html -- if it’s the same actor, he played Young Stooge in the Broadway show, Comin’ Uptown
https://theathletic.com/683548/2018/11/29/how-ohio-state-stole-wyatt-davis-and-the-delicate-balance-it-now-faces-with-offensive-line-change/ -- discusses Davis and his son
https://www.maxpreps.com/news/OxipzJ_AVU6CSnVTDjmB-w/st-john-bosco-5-star-lineman-wyatt-davis-boasts-famous-bloodlines,-nasty-streak-and-loads-of-talent.htm – discusses Davis and his son
https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/a-place-at-the-table-south-carolina-and-the-filming/article_b2c742da-b96b-11e7-8807-431250994fec.html -- discusses Davis in the film, The Program, which was apparently a very big football film and Davis’ character was a memorable one; he’s in the photo in the article
There are several other articles in this vein, discussing the actor in relation to his son and his football career, or in relation to "The Program" film and other productions. Whether this constitutes significant coverage or not, these sources could easily be added to the article, I think. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per the above sources. Will try to add refs soon. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been worked on by various editors—it now has 9 references and is re-formatted. I'd invite John Pack Lambert, who voted "delete", to view the updated article. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : did anyone look at the sources? They all talk about his son. The mentions of Duane are at best trivial and do not impart real information about Duane. There is no in depth discussion of Duane in any reliable sources. I don't feel as strongly as I did, but I'm not going to withdraw my nomination. There is no evidence this individual meets GNG or NACTOR. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently undecided. I did think that Davis's notability seemed a little shaky when I created Wyatt Davis. He receives more than passing mentions in a lot of articles, but they don't ever seem to focused on him and much of that has to do with the fact that both his father Willie Davis (defensive end) (a HOF defensive end) and his son (a top-level recruit out of HS and a consensus All-American in college) are both very much notable. If he is notable how is this sourcing different from a case of WP:NOTINHERITED? Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Davis has received significant recognition as his role as a football player in The Program and there are several sources on this. Many of the sources mention his son, but not all of them go into significant detail on Wyatt (more like, oh yeah, his son is a top recruit). I think there are enough sources to satisfy GNG and NACTOR. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say most articles that I have found are the other way around, but This one does focus more on him and he appears to have been part of several ESPN works regarding the "The Program". I think that he has received just enough combined with his acting credits to but him a little above the line of notability. Weak Keep, but keep the current maintenance tag on the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would argue that, given his acting credits, the subject is notable in his own right as an actor. The only area where I can see issues is WP:GNG. That being said, I do feel that there are substantial sources to satisfy it. He is discussed in sufficient detail in many of the sources currently in the article—certainly more than mere passing mentions—and it seems to me that this is not a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. If the sources simply tacked on the fact that the subject is the son and father of famous people, there would be a problem, but the sources discuss him in respect of his acting career and not (solely) in respect of his famous relatives. In my opinion, having famous relatives should not work against him if he can establish notability based on his own career. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve using the sources listed here. --Slashme (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kostyantyn Chyzhyk

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Deleted in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem a not unimportant post. What notability policy governs government appointees? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL is vague on whether or not elected/appointed status matters, so WP:POLOUTCOMES addresses something for "sub-cabinet officials". ミラ P 21:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Civil servants at the "deputy minister" level can certainly qualify for Wikipedia articles if they're properly referenced to sufficient reliable source coverage about them in media to clear WP:GNG, but are not handed any automatic notability freebies just because it's technically verifiable that they exist. But this is written like a résumé, not like an encyclopedia article, and the references aren't getting him over GNG — out of six footnotes, four primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, like a press release from his own employer and a newspaper piece where he's the bylined author of the content and not its subject and two YouTube videos. And the only two sources that are to real media just glancingly mention his name in the process of not being substantively about him, which means they aren't getting him over the bar by themselves either if they're the only reliable sources in play. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lefcentreright: Is notable. See my explanations why. ミラ P 21:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (in spite of the article quality) as an outright WP:NPOL pass, and WP:POLOUTCOMES states that Sub-cabinet officials [...] are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers. Besides, we just voted to keep a similar article from this country last month, and notability tends to be different between Wikipedias. ミラ P 12:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-cabinet officials are accepted as notable if they can be shown to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. They are not handed an automatic notability freebie, or an exemption from having to have any notability-supporting reliable sources, just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they are, as shown in that AFD. Besides, WP:N says that [a] topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and [i]t is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. WP:NPOL is a "subject-specific guideline" and covers [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national [...] office and is vague on who to apply it to, so we have WP:POLOUTCOMES to determine that, and we have something addressing "sub-cabinet officials". ミラ P 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This position needs adequate sourcing to show notability and we do not have adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 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 merge to Cryptocurrency tumbler. The majority does not think that the subject warrants a standalone article, but by merging the information is preserved. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Fog

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. Notorious scam site: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50037.620 分液漏斗 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge content somewhere suitable - it seems to have gained RS coverage, making it likely a notably notorious scam. That said, it's very short, and might benefit from being part of a longer article - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bitcoin, perhaps under Bitcoin#Security? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a somewhat notable mixer, so cryptocurrency tumbler seems a good place to put this - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It only appears to be notable in the context of a particular theft, and it's only a minor aspect of the story even then. The general concept of a cryptocurrency tumbler is encyclopedic, but I don't really think that this particular one is by itself. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give some consideration for straight delete or alternate action
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an example of technical esoterica that finds little traction in the establishment press, but which is of interest to historians. It would be a gross disservice for such material to vanish down the memory-hole. --2601:444:380:8C00:1FC:1845:1C64:DAD6 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC) <just.another.IP.user>[reply]
Delete - How is this of any historical value? Why does this matter for an article with zero reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an example of fraudulent bitcoin behavior that helps to tell the story of how the bitcoin craze developed in its first decade, for good and for ill. It is of historical value to people who want to understand the history of bitcoin exploitation. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toughpigs: Shouldn't it be merged with Cryptocurrency tumbler, then? BonkHindrance (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to cryptocurrency tumbler. Where's the WP:SIGCOV? I'm not seeing any. Lots of brief mentions and unreliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cryptocurrency tumbler, the current article contains lots of brief mentions and unreliable sources, not much in the way of actually passing GNG. However, it probably deserves a sentence or so in the cryptocurrency tumbler article, which it does not currently have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . It's just not notable, and only one of many mixers that have existed. I'd love to see more expansion on cryptocurrency tumbler. Nanite (talk) 01:54, 27 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. This does not qualify for a third relist in my opinion. 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project NEXUS

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

Non-notable long-ago research study. All the refs I can find are either reports of the study itself or as part of bio-sketches of those involved with it. DMacks (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In considering this request, it may be useful to look at the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hands_On_Science_Outreach,_Inc. --Hmee2 (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds like a good program, but I'm just not finding any in depth secondary/independent coverage to speak of. Perhaps a case could be made for including it in an article about McGinnis or the university article, but I'm not seeing sufficient sources for a stand-alone. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Principal Investigator just died 2 months ago.[34] StrayBolt (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe searching for the official website, drawntoscience.org, might be a more "public" way to find it. There was this NSTA blog post.[35] Maybe some other term on the website would work better. StrayBolt (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Showcase (comics). Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 19:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Maniaks

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

This fails to establish notability. Deprodder cites "Hero-A-Go-Go," but that contains coverage on a single page (pg. 261) with no particular commentary other than a reference to a band parody trend at the time. The most you could do is use it in place of primary material to describe some of the plot info. They also cite "Can Rock & Roll Save the World?," but that is literally a single mention of their name (pg. 170) in reference to some other group. That is the literal definition of trivial mention. The threshold of inclusion would need to be greatly lowered for those to establish notability. The topic can simply be covered in Showcase (comics). TTN (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. I've got some sources I can list here; I think the subject is marginal but interesting. If we put our collective libraries together then we may have enough. -- Toughpigs (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hero-A-Go-Go: Hero-A-Go-Go: Campy Comic Books, Crimefighters, & Culture of the Swinging Sixties by Michael Eury, TwoMorrows Publishing (2017). RS historical survey, commentary presented within a real-world historical context.
DC Comics News: Blog post with behind-the-scenes info and historical context.
Scott Shaw's Oddball Comics: Blog post with detailed review and background info.
Bully's Comics: Blog post with snarky review that includes discussion of the lead character's return in modern comics.
Weird Science DC Comics: Blog post with snarky but detailed review.
Gone and Forgotten: Brief blog post.

Seems more like a bottom of the barrel obscure topic that deserves a paragraph on the its parent article. TTN (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A passing page in a book and..blogs. ValarianB (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Showcase (comics) - notability is questionable at best, but we can keep some basic info about creators and premise in the relevant notes section of the table at the target page. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Selective Merge to Showcase (comics)- Minor group that appeared in a total of three comic book issues. The sources provided in the AFD are not valid sources to establish notability - the one book actually is a decent source, but the rest are all blog posts that are not considered to be reliable. The single source is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. A redirect to the main series article would be logical, though. And I suppose a selective merge as suggested by Killer Moff would be fine, even though I find that chart detailing every issue of the series to be a bit odd and excessive detail. Rorshacma (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Showcase (comics). A shortlived plot device, nothing sourced to merge. The sources listed above (blog posts!) should largely not be used to reference or improve this topic, as they are unreliable. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:54, 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. Article has now been rewritten by PCN02WPS and the consensus is now clear to keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 FIA Motorsport Games

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

Patent nonsense. This event is scheduled for October 2020, but is described here as if it has already happened.

So I suggest deletion per WP:TNT. If the events happen and is notable, an article can be created which doesn't rely on time travel. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a continuation of the 2019 FIA Motorsport Games, and it is the notable event. It should be rewrited not deleted. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article will be expanded as competition grows nearer, I rewrote part of it to take out the past tense. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current year event. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 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. Sandstein 09:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polaris Consulting & Services Limited

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

Despite a host of sources none of them speak to notability. Most are press releases, directory entries, notices of take-overs and mergers and share price listings. Only the last three offer anything approaching notability and that is all for their CEO , Arun Jain and not the company itself. Searches just reveal more of the same. At present it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hindu seems to be a valid source. Although in this case the link to it doesn't seem to have an article. At least it didn't for me. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Barry Bergman

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found three reviews, but they only cover one coauthored book. I don't think it's quite enough for WP:AUTHOR and there seems to be little else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: could this article be redirected to one about the book which seems to meet WP:NBOOK? TJMSmith (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If some non-COI editor cares enough about the subject to make an article about the book, sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't find anything that would make her or her book pass GNG. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Per WP:AUTHOR "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." - the work is cited in Teaching Green, The New Teaching Elementary Science, Science Curriculum and The greenhouse-effect experiment (behind a paywall but Google says they cite Jacobson & Bergman Science for Children). I have also added two sources to the article. The book source is more substantial with the NYT source being a trivial mention in the obituary of his co-author. As a side note, the article text says he is male but the article is claimed by Wikiproject Women Writers - I am guessing that someone got a little confused when they saw the name Abby (unless it is the text that is wrong, or the subject has had a change in gender). From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another trawl looking for sources reveals that his 1998 work was also cited in "No limits to teach(er)" but how?, The Duties, Responsibilities, and Challenges of Opening a New Elementary School and Elementary Principals' Perspectives on Opening New Schools in a Large Urban School District, among others. I am not sure how "wide" the "widely cited by peers" has to be for WP:AUTHOR but he does get a lot of mentions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak delete. While I think that he barely scrapes over the bar of notability, two exhaustive searches for online sources give little detail, even from trivial mentions. There is so little information that we are probably close to repeating the "about the author" section of his own book. For me this is a case of an article that would be useful to Wikipedia, if we had the reliable sources to take us beyond a list of his works. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, or redirect to article on the book. I also searched for reviews of other books without luck, although likely I was not as careful as David Eppstein. As far as citations, he has two pubs with about 40 citations each, which doesn't convince me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are weak for WP:GNG and the books published haven't met WP:NAUTHOR, even with the identification of additional works. Alansohn (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Inn, California

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

There are issues with relying on GNIS in California too. Tunnel Inn is not an unincorporated community, it was – you guessed it – an inn! See topo map (top center) in similar font to Portal Inn. Apparently they had good steak and the employees participated in a bowling league? Reywas92^Talk 01:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should inform the article creator of this nomination, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors; it is the courteous thing to do. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you run the coordinates through google maps? There appears to be a town there called "Tunnel Inn/Portal Inn".Americanfreedom (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very well aware of this... Google imports its data from the shitty GNIS, which also says Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington is a "populated place" so it shows up on Google Maps! This is not the name of this settlement, and by the way, "town" is legally defined as an incorporated place in CA. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: "Shitty"? Uh-oh, looks like someone forgot WP:CIVIL was a thing...Americanfreedom (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  L-O-fuckin-L, I've wasted too many hours cleaning up shitty articles like this one mass-created from this shitty database. Way too many damn errors in its classifications that people shouldn't be relying on to blindly assume notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's definitely a clump of houses and such in this area, but nothing except for words on topo maps gives it a name. Searching for it comes up with nothing but typical geoclickbait, and less of that than usual. Mangoe (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I found at least three Tunnel Inns in California, one in Lafayette, CA, which is the one Reywas92 mentioned as having good steaks and a bowling league. There seems to have been another in Sacramento. By searching for "Tunnel Inn Shasta", I did find these articles Bar fight at the Tunnel Inn, which supports the Tunnel Inn being only an inn, Timber blaze under control, says "prevent the fire from reaching the Tunnel Inn area, a heavily populated area," supports keeping the article, Obit that mentions that the wife and son were "both of the Tunnel Inn District," which supports keeping the article. Looking at WP:GEOLAND, this place is not obviously in the category of "Populated, legally recognized places", though it did have a FIPS code and it is listed in a California Roster of Federal, State, County and City Officials 1964, so it does have some legal recognition. As far as "Populated places without legal recognition," I've only found trivial coverage in newspapers, so it fails that test. On the basis of the FIPS code and being in the roster, I feel the article meets WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of the railroad spurs of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington have the same five-digit census codes. They're automatically provided for everything in the GNIS and is not a statement of being a legally recognized populated place. The California Roster I assume uses the same data from USGS, but the same page that lists "Tunnel Inn, Shasta" has a "Union Creek, Trinity", which is only in the GNIS as a stream, as well as "Union Air Terminal, Los Angeles": Hollywood Burbank Airport is not a populated place! Reywas92^Talk 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm not that up on FIPS. Good call on the Roster. Until I found those two sources, I would have moved for weak delete, so I'll change my position to Weak Delete now. Cxbrx (talk) 19:46, 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 keep. Or no consensus, but there have been no "delete"s since relevant sources were found. Sandstein 13:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Morrison (organist)

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

No sources listed in the article, and I cannot find any notable independent sources that would indicate WP:GNG. There are lots of listings pages, press releases and biographies, but nothing independent. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I struggled to find sources that establish him enough to pass GNG or WP:MUSICIAN. Missvain (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any indepdent sources, let alone ones that are reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No coverage to satisfy WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found a couple of possible sources: 1 and 2, but not a huge amount of coverage by way of reviews. Pinging Sesquialtera II and DGG to see if they have more information, just in case. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these Bearian - as they are both simply concert listings, wouldn’t these come under WP:ROUTINE? Asking not to be awkward but because I want to build my own knowledge on policy, I see you on a lot of these AfD discussions and respect your opinion! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Head of the organ department at a famous music school (Curtis), but that's not necessarily defiitive. . Whar we need to do what we would normally do, which is look for reviews of his works. His website lists 2, without specifics of just when they were published (1) "CLEVELAND "ORGANIST PRODUCES A JOYFUL PERFORMANCE" - "....a rising young virtuoso of flawless technique and refined taste.... Playing most of his repertoire from memory, he communicated a sense of pleasure that lifted the music beyond the notes." The Plain Dealer" and (2) " "....Alan Morrison knows something about igniting audience passions. Without hesitation and throughout, Morrison's playing is consummate and dazzling...." - Fanfare from Fanfare (magazine). DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

refs at [36] - but the orginal source needs to be added also. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG - do you have access to these quotes and can include them as independent secondary sources? Currently the article has no independent sources at all which we need to find if the page should stay. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - changed !vote and hat tip to DGG. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources reviews have been identified and now need to be tracked to source and added to the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, Bearian, Atlantic306 - but at the moment I cannot find these original sources, only the publicity quotes taken and placed onto a primary source. Can we really accept notability based simply on these primary sources? Thanks for your help on this. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple oher reviews available also: they are listed, with some of them linked, and some links working, at [37]; I found this page by searching in Google for Alan Morrison organ, which is not a particularly subtle or complicated method, though it seems to have not been used by the nominator. Among the actual working links are [38], [39], I have not done a search in newspaper archives requiring paid access. For Fanfare, see [40] Actual access to the reviews requires a subscription. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, Link 2 is new to me and is really helpful. Your sarcasm, however, isn’t helpful. Please WP:GOODFAITH in future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I shouldn't have directed it at you specifically, because incomplete prior searches are a common problem. Some of this might be because the full searches asked for by WP:BEFORE are impractically detailed. And I too sometimesassume that i sarch I did is sufficient and it turns out otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the fairly easy balance. It may be helpful if the early delete !voters could confirm if they believe the new sources remain insufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 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 to delete. BD2412 T 02:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hotel Cirta

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

Appears to be a non-notable hotel with no reason to be included in WP above and beyond thousands of other hotels. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's thousands of non notable hotels but this ain't one of them. A notable colonial building in a major Algerian city. Adequately sourced and appropriate for hotels, hardly advertises it. Should be further coverage in Algerian newspapers in Arabic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Blofeld, can you explain to me what makes it more notable than other hotels? Currently the sources nor the article explain what makes this a notable hotel above any others. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dr. Blofield. --Doncram (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardiffbear88 It's notable architecturally [41] , aside from being one of the top hotels of one of the biggest cities in a country. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dr. Blofeld - if you have time could you perhaps integrate some of this information into the article? My French isn’t good enough to extract it from this article accurately. At the moment I don’t feel there’s any notable information about the hotel’s architecture, for example.

The photo in that source from 2018 establishes the architectural significance of the hotel well enough for me. My French language skill is imperfect but I gather from reading the article in French that there is legal dispute about permitting during major renovation of hotel. A Google translation into English of the article is incomplete (drops some sections where pictures or picture captions obscure the main text) for me, but it seems:

the hotel consists of two buildings built in 1910 and 1923, on 3 hectares (7.4 acres)
the present owners bought the hotel in 2014(?) and/or began the major rehabilitation in 2014(?) with terms approved by the Algerian national government(?), or by other means an understanding was created, which:

a) involved a 40 million Euro subsidy by the Algerian state for the major rehabilitation and set a scope of work for the project which included closing a portion of road, the "upper part of Rahmani Achour Street to the SIH", whatever the SIH is. The permanent road closure is essential to the project for allowing proper security of the hotel's entranceway. (I suspect they are trying to make it secure to avoid vehicle bombing of the entranceway, as has happened at a number of high end hotels in the Middle East)

b) which the local mayor and government of Constantine are not going along with, refusing to allow the closure of the road, and stating that the access "is critical for the city and especially for the population who live on Rahmani Achour street"

the rehabilitation combines the two historic buildings, adds swimming pools (plural) and administrative space extensions, yielding a hotel having "54 luxurious rooms, 26 diplomatic suites, and a presidential one".
The rehabilitation also installed "modern fire safety systems while retaining its Arab-Moorish architectural aspect."
Completion of the rehab, including achieving security for the entranceway, was required for the hotel to obtain or to keep "Autograph label" which is a certification or branding that I think must be necessary for diplomats or other high-end clients to be willing to stay there [apparently this is Autograph Collection label].

The rehabilitation seemed to be mostly complete, with funds wholly or mostly spent. The contractor(s) were obligated to complete the project by December 31, 2018, but were blocked by the local government's actions.

IMHO the scope of the rehab and the involvement of national government and conflict with the local government make the project and this hotel more significant than it would have been already.

IMHO there must exist local and off-line sources about the hotel in its long history, and there will have been historic coverage of important events/people staying there, as well as coverage of the design/architecture of the buildings.

I am curious what happened, did the hotel get opened; it seems like it would have been resolved by now, in February 2020. Perhaps it did not get opened, or it is not marketed to the general public, because hotel search websites like this one about top Constantine hotels do not cover it.

Hope this partial summary of that article and comments help somewhat. --Doncram (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram Whilst this is useful, we need to find independent secondary sources to prove that there is a consensus that the hotel is architecturally significant. Our interpretation of a photo accompanying a primary source is not sufficient to demonstrate notability.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That dismissal grossly misunderstands my posting. --Doncram (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram the SIH is the hotel investment company. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about another hotel: Constantine is city also known as Cirta. Searching more broadly on "Constantine Algeria hotel architecture" yields this source by Myrtha pools company about their multiple-pools project at Constantine Marriott Hotel (a different, 5-star, peer hotel), and this source by architect of renovations at that hotel, which covers its architecture and amenities and size in text and photos. The architect or contractor was Fabris & Partners of Latisana, Italy. Fabris & Partners' website offers up this coverage of the hotel in Compasses architectural magazine, issue 28, in 2018. The Constantine Marriott Hotel seems clearly notable to me. It is not covered in Wikipedia's List of hotels or specifically List of hotels in Algeria (new redirect). --Doncram (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram This is outside of the scope of an AfD debate, which can only ever be about deleting one page or a series of related pages. Have a look at WP:AFC for information about how to nominate a topic for a new article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about commenting in AFDs. I have posted this in another AFD: IMO it gets tedious if an editor comments in response to every single other comment made which does not perfectly agree with the editor's stated position. Maybe it is more tedious if the editor is the deletion nominator. It is also more tedious if the editor does not concede an iota, ever, about any point at all, IMO. Please let a consensus emerge from others' discussion. --Doncram (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram You are welcome to explore my contributions and see for yourself - I don’t make a habit of commenting endlessly on AfDs, trust me. However, I’m afraid your most recent comments have highlighted significant misunderstandings in the AfD process which I thought I was being courteous to alert you to. I don’t really have a strong opinion either way whether the article stays or goes, but I do want the decision to be based on the facts and not bluster. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the hotel and its restoration are the subject of national news 1, 2 and 3. The architecture seems interesting but I’m not sure that it’s so distinctive that it would establish notability on its own. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First off, the article makes no claim of notability. It says basically that it's a hotel, but nothing about why it's different from any other hotel. And yes, AfD isn't for cleanup, but an article has to make a credible claim of notability. The comment here that it's "one of" the "top" hotels in "one of" the biggest cities is really vague. What does "top" mean? One of how many top hotels? So basically it's a big hotel in the third largest city in Algeria. That doesn't make it notable.

Secondly, the article has a strongly promotional character. It lists the rooms in the hotel, which is normal in an advertisement, but not in an encyclopedia article of this size, and it quotes marketing-style descriptions from travel sites. --Slashme (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has said, "I don’t really have a strong opinion either way whether the article stays or goes..." which seems to indicate that he/she might not feel as strongly about the nomination to delete anymore. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your comment, Cardiffbear88. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflaw4 having looked at all of the evidence presented in this debate I’m still not convinced that the subject is in any way notable. I don’t believe any of the !keep editors so far have provided independent secondary sources that demonstrate notability above and beyond any hotel in any guide book. Particularly the argument about architectural significance, which needs secondary evidence and not our interpretation of a photo.

Having said that, I’m not going to go into edit wars or argue about it incessantly on here with anyone who disagrees, as some might have suggested previously. I’m not going to renominate it, or flag it elsewhere for deletion, if this forum believes it should be kept. However, as of yet I’m not convinced of the arguments still. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, that's perfectly fair enough, and I appreciate your clarification! Unfortunately, I don't feel as though I'm well-versed enough in this area to vote and to help resolve the debate, but I did feel that I should ask you, as the nominator, how you were feeling in view of your comment. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ring-Ding

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

Potentially non-notable musician. The most substantial coverage I was able to find is an interview and this blog post. The act is somewhat widely mentioned by name, but depth of coverage seems to be lacking. Many mentions seem to be due to the novelty of a German ska act, and a related argument for notability is made on the article's talk page. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the article claims that two of his singles (one a co-operation) have charted on one or other of the German national charts which would pass criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC. One of the chartings is referenced to a book on Google books but I can't read it on my ipad. There is also a staff written bio on AllMusic here and they have two staff written reviews of two of his albums, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. In addition to the German chart-listing, there's also a lot of coverage in ska/punk fanzines, including an interview in Broke in Korea #17. I know that fanzines aren't necessarily considered RS, but there really are quite a few, which I think speaks to the importance of the band in this particular subculture. I added those links to the article in a "Further reading" section. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable musician who meets WP:NMUSIC. Read these sentences in the article: Dr. Ring Ding is known for his Ska and Reggae collaborations with artists including Lord Tanamo, Derrick Morgan, Laurel Aitken, Judge Dread, Vic Ruggiero, and many others. He has also performed with the Skatalites and The Toasters. Dr. Ring Ding also earned acclaim with a cover of the Johnny Cash song Ring of Fire. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep votes predominate and have stronger policy-based arguments, having found coverage in reliable sources. Suggest considering a merge outside of AfD process. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Rashtriya Manch

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

Every sources are routine coverages. The article fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:SOAP. This is yet another minor, local charity, which probably does good work, but we're not a directory nor a soap-box. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This source, for example, is far from "routine coverage". I am concerned about the speed at which this user sends articles for deletion and whether they are actually conducting a WP:BEFORE. This is one of the three articles they AfD'd in eight minutes and another user expressed a similar concern on their talk page last month. Dee 03 03:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:MILL, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:SOAP. The org fails WP:ORGCRIT to have a separate page. The HT link posted by Dee03 is an interview of the president of this organisation and hence it cannot be used to claim notability. The bar is much higher in ORGCRIT. DBig Xrayᗙ 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote to merge with Sangh Parivar as its parent organization--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate. --Soman (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is pretty clear with sources like [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] that there is evidence of sufficient significant coverage to merit a standalone page. In fact, this organization's petition against Triple talaq in India was signed by over a million Muslims [49] and the entity seems to have received widespread media attention from across the world [50] [51]. Besides, not-for-profit organizations need not meet ORGCRIT. Dee 03 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is an opinion piece.

[2] a short article that mentions some of the works of the org.

[3] (posted a second time in this thread) an interview of the president of this organisation and hence it cannot be used to claim notability

[4] acceptable source focussing on the spread of the org in Kashmir

[5] acceptable

[6], [7], [8], [10] are again WP:ROUTINE news articles with interview of office holders.

[9] to some extent appears acceptable but it mostly focuses on the interview of the office bearers.

Kautilya3 your link below doesnt work, please fix the link. I think MRM should be merged to RSS or to Sangh Parivar if it survives the AfD--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going by your comment, this organization breezes past the alternate criteria for non-commercial organizations. Moving on... Dee 03 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, as pointed out elsewhere, WP:ROUTINE only applies to the notability of events, so it should not be used as an argument on notability of individuals and organizations. --Soman (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dee03, MRM is a Muslim WP:BRANCH of RSS, so it still needs an independent notability pass if it has to exist as a seperate article, and I don't see how it breezes past the criteria. Soman, if you dont want WP:ROUTINE to be invoked, then please do not use routine coverage of events in the newspapers. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking us to evaluate this using BRANCH has become slightly repetitive and redundant at this point, given that BRANCH is being cited incorrectly to begin with. As demonstrated by multiple editors, this organization is notable on its own, unlike recently deleted ones like BJYM Karnataka and BJYM Mumbai, which were indeed examples of BRANCH, i.e., individual chapters of national and international organizations. MRM passes the alternate criteria by satisfying two (NONPROFIT and GNG), if not all three, of the notability requirements outlined there. Dee 03 08:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was vacillating till now, but I see that Dee03 has made a pretty persuasive argument. Andersen & Damle's recent book is said to have a detailed coverage of this organisation as well.[52] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has received significant source coverage (including national newspapers) of the largest English-speaking country in the world. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - between the sources and Dee's reasoning, notability seems to be established. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable WP:BRANCH of an organisation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only that org fails on notability, it fails on verifiability as well. If it somehow survives AfD, it should be merged into RSS or any of its affiliate articles with some clarifications, pronto (entire string on RSS articles suffers from extreme nationalism bias and POV problems, lacking basic info and context).-౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, the WP:THREE are: Chapter 6 of the book linked above by Walter K. Andersen and Shridhar D. Damle published in 2019 by C. Hurst & Co. and distributed in the US by Oxford University Press, The Economic Times 2015 [53], and Deutsche Welle 2017 [54]. Put "Muslim Rashtriya Manch" into WP:RSSE or Google News and there is a lot of other coverage, e.g., India Today 2019 [55], Indo-Asian News Service via The New Indian Express 2019 [56], and Newslaundry 2016 (not sure if that one is an RS). I also think this Hindustan Times 2014 article [57] counts as GNG because it is both an interview and also independent reporting in the journalist's own voice. I also think The Washington Post 2019 opinion piece [58] counts for notability even if it's opinion. But even without the HT and WaPo, and take out the routine or otherwise questionable stuff, this is still a GNG keep based on the sourcing out there. Levivich 20:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leviv I have reviewed the links and I note that all of them are referring it as RSS body,

RSS backed Muslim Rashtriya Manch on ... (In its title)
...some Muslims have joined the RSS, a hardline... (in its opening line)
RSS wing reaches out to Muslims (in its title)
This RSS body is a bridge between Muslims and Sangh(in its title)

RSS is a notable organisation and these appear to be dependent coverage based on the popularity of RSS as it is a WP:BRANCH of RSS. Accordingly I have changed my vote from Delete to Merge with Sangh Parivar (also fine with a merge with RSS) as I think we should have the info about this wing of RSS somewhere. Sangh Parivar being the umbrella term for RSS organizations. seems to be the best alternative the other being Rashtriya Swayamsevak SanghDBig Xrayᗙ 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not surprised that every source discussing MSM also discuss RSS since MSM is part of RSS, but although RSS is mentioned, the articles I linked to are in-depth coverage of MSM, not RSS, and that’s why I think it should be kept (although I see it as a WP:PAGEDECIDE/WP:PAGESIZE issue more than a notability issue, so I’m not terribly opposed to a merge). Levivich (lulz) 23:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, These links are actually introducing it as RSS wing and talking about MRM in context of RSS. All these articles make it clear that they consider the reader to be familiar with RSS and unfamiliar with MRM. Had MRM been notable to merit a separate article, the media would have jumped into discussing MRM exclusively. RSS page, I note that has "readable Prose size (text only) = 52 kB (8592 words) so clearly RSS article is not WP:TOOBIG per the WP:PAGESIZE. regarding WP:PAGEDECIDE, I would say that it actually suggests to merge since MRM so far has basically been a messenger for the RSS to communicate RSS' policies to the muslim masses. There is no major work that can be discussed in this exclusive article and the reader is better served by reading about MRM as a section in RSS. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had MRM been notable to merit a separate article, the media would have jumped into discussing MRM exclusively.^{[citation needed]} As for whether it’s better for the reader for the articles to be merged or not, that’s an editorial decision that should be discussed on the talk page of RSS per our usual merge discussion procedure. This AFD nom is based on the argument that the subject fails GNG and NORG. I think the sources disprove that. So it’s a keep. The fact that it could be merged doesn’t make it not-a-keep. Literally every article that meets GNG could be merged. I don’t really like discussing mergers at AFDs, because watchers of the RSS article may not even be aware of this AFD. So you can argue merge until you’re blue in the face, it won’t change my mind that this article topic meets GNG. That opinion of mine is based on the sourcing, not on arguments about merger, because whether an article should be merged has little to do with whether an article meets GNG, as explained in PAGEDECIDE. Levivich (lulz) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and WP:INHERITORG. Relevant informatin should be added to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this organisation seems to be independently notable, as it has taken part in multiple significant actions that were independently reported on. --Slashme (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wawalag

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

This article is worse than useless because it is completely uncited and only refers to one possible version of the story, and the link to the supposed father of them (which doesn't exist in all stories) is not covered in that article. I would delete and if someone wants to re-create properly (which would take quite a bit of work). (See this encyclopaedia, for instance.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, unable to determine reliability. WWGB (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article should not be judged purely based on it's current state. [59]. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support keeping if sources were added. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would also support keeping if sufficient reliable sources can be found. Bookscale (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the problem is, if you look at the history, it's hardly been touched since creation, and if you Google, there is a lot of work needed to attempt to cover all variations and possible interpretations, and reliable sources are scant. Who will do the work, and when? My point is that it's useless and misleading in its current form, which is worse than having no article at all. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from the nominator - "This article is worse than useless ...", and "My point is that it's useless and misleading in its current form", see WP:CONTN, emphasises that notability is of the subject and not of the wikiarticle. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps draftify. I believe the subject is notable, however, given article's current state relative to even the limited content readily available it is a WP:TNT. Given the extremely limited work done on it, I suggest WP:TNTTNT does not apply. If any issues in this regard then draftify. Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yunggor#Mythology. Merge and relevant sourceable content. Changed my !vote as per further information below. Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is certainly notable and I've now added some references and I think it has the potential to be a great (appropriate) little page. Cabrils (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: they're all hardcopy, and available in only one location. There's a real scarcity of info online, and what I did look at before was conflicting. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. I found and added one old but fairly detailed and reliable online source which I found after writing the above, which gives a rough outline of the main elements of the story, adding that space does not allow for the many variants. This may be a good starting point to work from, if the article is to be kept (assuming someone has the time and will to improve it). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's true but I think it's important to remember that "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources": WP:OFFLINE. The difficulty of offline sources is that it makes researching more difficult (a bit like how the world used to operate for the last 1000+ years ;-) !). I like what you've done, good start in the right direction! Cabrils (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll keep this in good faith due to the sources added. Due to the subject-matter an online source may not always be available.Merge or redirect to Yunggor#Mythology - JarrahTree has identified a much more appropriate place rather than its own page. I'll leave it up to others to determine whether anything is worth merging or not. Bookscale (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia politeness rules prevent my response to most comments here - it is a very valid northern territory creation myth, and if anyone actually checked - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunggor#Mythology is part of the problem, whether to have a separate article, or some effort to help the Yunggor article. JarrahTree 13:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @JarrahTree: - I don't understand your delete vote. I don't know much about this topic and added a keep in good faith but if there's a better place to put this, I'm happy to be convinced - it would be helpful for you as someone much more knowledgeable about the topic to explain a bit more. For example, if the myth is valid but nothing worth merging here, why not a redirect? I also don't understand why any of the responses here may have warranted a rude reply if you were able to do that - they seem to have been made in good faith with limited information. Bookscale (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- reply - there is clear evidence another article exists, with better context and references, this afd seems a time waster - on the basis that as the article with context already exists, there is no need to have a separate article. I have not seen any argumnet from this afd that suggests anyone has the resources to specifically expand the article for it to complement the existing article. JarrahTree 10:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may have muddied the waters somewhat by finding a reliable source and adding a bit of info from this yesterday. I'm happy either way, but if merged it is probably worth copying the extra source (if I haven't done so already) into that article too. And the new (hard copy) citations mentioned above. Thanks for all of your contributions, and for pointing out the Yunggor article, JarrahTree. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just caught up and I think I agree with JarrahTree's position and Laterthanyouthink. Thank you both. Cabrils (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant Dreamtime story appearing across multiple nations (hence inappropriate to redirect to Yunggor) and discussed in multiple independent academic and tertiary sources. AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn May I ask for some help with your references please. As per above I have currently !voted delete on the basis of TNT ... I would fix the article if possible. I have had a quick look at your references and sorry but I am having trouble finding the relevant material. Can you provide me with some page numbers please within your references. (#1 is 51 pages, #2 is 38 pages, #3 is 602 pages, #4 while only 6 pages seems to be just a museum holding catalogue outline and it is not obvious to me on first look where the reference is, #5 is okay). Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: - I've placed the references with specific page indications on the article's talk page. The piece ("museum catalogue") by Stanton (1995) is important because on page 57 in the lower right corner is a Yirrkalla bark painting depicting the story of the Wawalag Sisters. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more references to the talk page. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:06, 13 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 Photoelectrochemical cell. Sandstein 18:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photoelectrochemical oxidation

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

The notability of photoelectrochemical oxidation as a unique concept in the field of chemistry is not obvious. Although the phrase itself seems to appear in many peer-reviewed, scholarly sources, the lack of other sources providing a succinct definition of the principle suggests that it may lack notability. This page was also created and largely authored by a user suspected of having commercial conflicts of interest. Kairotic (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Photoelectrochemical cell, it's not clear that the oxidation form of this reaction needs a separate page, sources aren't specific to this term as its own class. Reywas92^Talk 19:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards merge now, but this seems like a valuable scientific article that wouldn't be bad to keep either. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that it doesn't establish notability per NORG Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Minority Congress

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

Only one source in the article. The source is self published. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non notable WP:BRANCH of a political party. notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources dont establish individual notability and I cant find either. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:19, 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 redirect to Department of Agriculture (Philippines). Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Agriculture - CALABARZON (Philippines)

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

Unnecessary article/subpage (for a regional office of a department) that is written like a some sort of directory. hueman1 (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article shouldn't be redirected to the article "Department of Agriculture (Philippines)" because it also fails the naming convention. --hueman1 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Department of Agriculture (Philippines). No other region other than CALABARZON has its own page. _SUPER ^ASTIG 13:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Department of Agriculture (Philippines). Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alien morphs in the Alien franchise

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

Overly in-depth, plot filled, non-notable topic. This is both an unnecessary split of Alien (creature in Alien franchise) and a collection of other minor plot elements that do not need extensive coverage. There are a few scattered production details, but those belong in the main article or the film articles. They don't justify this mess. TTN (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary und unbalanced content fork of Alien (creature in Alien franchise). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The actual overview of the creatures, which is the only sourced content here, is already fully covered at Alien (creature in Alien franchise). Those sources also appear to be largely primary or from unreliable sources, so I don't really see anything that would need to be merged to the primary article. The actual list portion is a lot of unsourced, overly detailed plot information that does not pass WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure FANDOM material, that fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is FANCRUFT, not encyclopedic material. Lordtobi (✉) 09:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial stuff, not actually about the fictional characters (idea, development, reception, etc.). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial cruft with no encyclopedic value. Fails WP:LISTN. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:28, 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. Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sejal Sharma

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

The person only worked in Dil Toh Happy Hai Ji in significant role. She worked in other production in minor roles. The article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the standards for actors and actresses, I don't think the subject is notable enough. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the reliable sources and WP:GNGACTOR, the article shouldn't be deleted. However, further readings may be more useful. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it is relatively balanced. Creators are entitled to participate in an AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. 190.239.55.132 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please login to your original account rather contributing via a naked IP.TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero starring roles, and no major awards. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions in Faerûn

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

Containment article for non-notable topics. The list fails to establish notability, and there is no justification for keeping this as a spin-out article. TTN (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE Chetsford (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a gameguide or fancruft repository. b uidhe 17:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An overview of the important regions are already covered at Faerûn. The rest is just comprised of overly detailed, in-universe plot information that is either unsourced or using only primary sources. The overall topic fails WP:LISTN, and there is no content that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 17:55, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes This High (band)

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

fails WP:BAND LibStar (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Online sourcing is looking thin but they definitely made waves in Wellington. This profile by a music charitable trust (Not your usual random blog) called them: "Arguably the most memorable of all the early Wellington post-punk bands." And if you click read more there is reams of material. This source is republication of a 1981 review. However an interesting snippet at the bottom of that page says: "I’m making it available simply for the record, because there was so little written about such groups at the time." Wading through the other the google hits gets them plenty of passing mentions mostly in relation to Heyward. So weather this all adds up to significant coverage, I'm undecided on. Mattg82 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Week keep~~as the piece originally from a NZ paper The Evening Post is significant coverage and there are some reviews mentioned above and in the article, but more would help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Changed to full keep explained later Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sourcing found, sources already present are trivial. And why do new article creators always append (band) at the end of article names even when they don't need to? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)}
Delete, albeit there seems to be related sources (to some extent), but as much as I see/reckon: such references might not be good enough to keep/support a page in Wikipedia; and factually it needs more related sources to be kept. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this source which heavily implies that coverage existed in the The Dominion Post (Wellington) and the Evening Post. Not sure about the second one but the Dominion is one of NZ's top newspapers. I also found [60], which looks decent. And also this blog post which was apparently originally published on Othermusic.com (no longer available online, so they reposed it on a blog). Not sure if Othermusic would count or not as I don't know much about the site, but it does have some nice coverage. I also found [61], which also mentions coverage in "In Touch Magazine". I think in general there is enough indication that reliable sources exist (and others exist that aren't available online) and that we have enough sources to be able to flesh out a non-stub article. I didn't even do that thorough of a search, so there's probably a lot I missed. (Disclaimer: I live in Wellington NZ but haven't heard of the band before.) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there is plenty of coverage of this band from the era they were active, but it will be in print newspapers and magazines that aren't easily available online. Based on what we have currently I'd say we are firmly at 'borderline', but giving the benefit of the doubt we should probably keep this. As a local Wellingtonian I'm wary of objectivity though. LibStar, Mattg82, Atlantic306,TenPoundHammer and Ali Ahwazi; thoughts? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far all you've found is implications of coverage, not the actual coverage. For all we know the "coverage" could've just been a name drop that got overinflated to make the band seem more notable, absent the actual coverage's presence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changing to full keep. There is proven significant coverage in The Evening Post and in this magazine article here press read more for the full article and it is highly likely that there is content in the Dominican post so there is enough coverage for it to stay, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus notability wasn't established Nosebagbear (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. A. Siddique Hassan

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable Indian Islamist. The subject has some coverage on internet but not qualify to keep it. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 09:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 09:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created 10 years ago and still no improvements. Also there is no much coverage of subject on internet. GargAvinash (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:07, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Khanna

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

From articles linked, he has won a few trade awards and been mentioned in some advertorial type content on beauty sites. This does not confer notability to me. Article has been mainly edited by users who seem to be connected to the subject Spike 'em (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls short in SIGCOV, as sources mainly consist of tabloid mentions in the context of cosmetic surgery, such as in the Daily Mail. No indication he would fulfill any other criteria. PK650 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short of GNG. Dorama285 19:32, 07 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking enough significant coverage from reliable sources to establish GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:45, 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. qedk (t 桜 c) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Dettman

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

Glen Dettman is a promoter of the alternative medicine megavitamin therapy. The article is written very much like a résumé and appears to serve only to boost the prestige of a supporter of an alternative medicine adjacent to anti-vaccination. With regard to notability, the only references currently cited are an automatic WW2 Nominal Roll, a book written by Glen Dettman, and two obituaries in blogs. I could not find any reliable sources about Glen Dettman. He appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. userdude 06:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. userdude 06:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. userdude 06:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. userdude 06:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. userdude 06:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. userdude 06:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO (received well-known and significant award, made a widely recognised contribution, or entry in DNB or similar) or WP:BASIC (have received significant coverage in multiple sources), the article's references/external links do not show this and have been unable sources that do. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject looks as though it should be notable but while there is more than WP:EXISTS I cannot find material sufficient to support WP:NEXIST and hence nor GNG. I would consider changing my !vote if someone can find a couple of "good" sources. Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I could not find a single mention of Dettman in a ProQuest database search of all Aust and NZ newspapers. However a Trove search revealed 2 books (1 currently already included in references) and 2 newspaper articles so I have added these as best I could. It feels like a weak weak keep to me now... Cabrils (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I found those too. Just felt it was not enough though. Like I wrote above looks as though it should be notable .... The subject does not need much more to get over the bar ... Aoziwe (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I'm with you, just inclined to keep... Cabrils (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All three books on Trove are at least coauthored by Dettman, thus cannot be used to establish notability per WP:SPIP. userdude 23:25, 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 Draftify. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Rattler

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

not my field, but I do not think this meets the usual criteria for American football DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ striking per below This appears to be WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 11:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Though there is some coverage for him, I think the best move would be to move to draft for the time being. If he is announced as the starting quarterback, I think it will meet GNG at that point. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's fair to consider this article as falling within WP:TOOSOON, but he will almost certainly be notable later this year, if he is not already. He is expected to be Oklahoma's starting quarterback this year, and the current betting odds rank him No. 3 as a likely candidate to win the 2020 Heisman Trophy. See here and here. Eddy's suggestion to draftify probably makes more sense than outright deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with draftify. We don't yet know if he'll be Oklahoma's quarterback, and we can't assume that. We can move it over once he starts for them, assuming he'll generate the coverage to go along with that. SportingFlyer T·C 03:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't yet know if he'll be Oklahoma's starting quarterback ..." We agree, and that's why WP:TOOSOON applies, and draftifying seems like the prudent middle course. That said, if the No. 3 Heisman prospect doesn't end up starting, that would be remarkable (and perhaps Wiki-notable) in itself. Cbl62 (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - was just clarifying my vote change. SportingFlyer T·C 05:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. Cbl62 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per all above. Will be notable as soon as Summer/Fall 2020, but right now, it's simply WP:TOOSOON. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per all above. The coverage he has currently received puts him just a bit below passing WP:GNG, but he'll likely pass GNG by mid-fall at the latest given the amount of national coverage starting QBs of schools such as Oklahoma receive. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:37, 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. A clear consensus to keep is formed after the discussion was relisted. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdvanSix

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

The company does not seem notable for anything. Routers is the only reliable source, but the companies coverage in their article isn't substantial. It seems like the other articles are just about stock prices or financial releases. Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company was spun off of Honeywell in 2016, according to Forbes. When the Feds dropped an investigation of the company in 2019, Yahoo Finance thought it deserved a full length story. Colin Gerhard (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin Gerhard: I noticed you put the Plastic News citation in the article about them closing the plant in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. So can you also get rid of the reference to it as currently being operational in the second paragraph? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Colin, and that isn't the only news coverage I've managed to find of them. They apparently got an eco-friendly award that was also covered in Yahoo news, among other sources. That's not notable in and of itself, I don't think, but the company is definitely getting independent coverage. The article could certainly use improvement, but I don't see any good reason to delete it altogether. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo "News article" is just a company press release from business wire. In no way is that is independent coverage. You and Colin really should have checked it before citing it. As far as forbes article goes, a company being split is kind of blah. Its not notable IMO because otherwise your making it a notability by association thing. Which isn't how Wikipedia works. Also, the Forbes "article" (more like a blog post. Which they do have) is by a guest author and doesn't represent their views. So that's blah also and again, should have been checked before citing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there's also already established consensus here that Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. Even the company says they don't represent their views. So please check the sources before posting them next time. Otherwise, we just end up keeping a none notable article. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This subject gets thousands of stories on Google news. Here is one in Plastics News: "AdvanSix halts nylon film making in Pennsylvania, cutting 85 jobs." It tells us that, "AdvanSix ranks as one of the world's largest makers of nylon 6. The firm posted sales of just over $1.5 billion in 2018." Check out our nylon 6 article.
I see the problem with the Yahoo Finance story now. As for the Forbes article, WP:RSP is, you know, a Wikipedia page that anyone can edit. At most, the opinions expressed there are the "consensus" of a discussion that might have involved three or four people. Forbes remains a widely-used source for business information. Contributors can certainly have opinions that do not represent Forbes. But an editor decided that this subject was notable enough to run a story about it. I am not aware of any general rule that says spinoffs are not notable. It obviously depends on the coverage and significance of the spinoff in question. Colin Gerhard (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, see Google Test. "Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy." I'm sure you'll blow that off though because anyone can edit it. Anyway, how many of those articles in Google News are actually usable? The vast majority are stock price "articles." In other words, complete trash. So maybe there's a few that are usable if you sift through them, but that's not the argument your making anyway. I don't care if there's the possibility there might be reliable sources at some point in the future if we look hard enough for them because Google News give thousands of results. I care if we have them now, and we don't. As far as the Forbes thing goes, it wasn't three or four people. It was 11 discussions involving multiple people every time. Even if it was just 3 or 4 or in each, and it wasn't, that would still be 30 or 40 people. Which is ten times more then decides on if an article gets deleted here. If you think the opinions of 4 or 40 people isn't consensus enough, then I see zero reason your even involved in this. Ultimately I don't care what Forbes editors think, I care what precedence on Wikipedia is and it's clear the precedence is against us using contributors to Forbes as sources. If you have an issue with it, feel free to take it up in the proper channels. This isn't the right place to argue about it though. As it's not on me. Btw, all the information from your Plastic News source is either credited to either an earnings release, "Market sources" (whatever that means), or a blog post. Your really reaching if you think those things are at all reliable. My guess is that most of the Google News results you think we keep the article over are much of the same. Earnings amount and them being a top company in their industry doesn't matter if there's no reliable sources about them. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you no shame? Here is the relevant discussion about Forbes. It was literally three editors who made this decision. Colin Gerhard (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Colin, your only citing one discussion when I said there where 11. Go to the actual article I cited here instead of nick picking a single discussion. See the 11 next to the red circle with the line through it? That's how many discussions there have been about it. If you hover the n in brackets next to the 11 there's links to all the discussions. Which should have been obvious since that's how many discussions I said there were. If you can't be bothered to even check a simple thing like that before you attack someone and are that miss-trusting of what other people tell you, you really shouldn't be doing this. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing speaking to their notability has materialized since the first time the AfD was listed and I doubt anything will. None of the sources provided have been reliable and the person still defending them has resorted to personal attacks instead of looking for more. So, there's zero reason this article should exist IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint made about Forbes contributors on Reliable sources/Noticeboard is that they are mere bloggers. But Joe Cornell edits a subscription newsletter, so I don't think he comes under that umbrella. He seems to be a "spin off specialist" and has written a long list of articles for Forbes on various spin offs. To summarize, here are the stories an AdvanSix artcle could be based on:

Cornell, Joe, "Digging Into Honeywell's AdvanSix Spinoff," Forbes, Jun 3, 2016.
"AdvanSix Awarded 2020 Gold Rating for Corporate Social Responsibility From EcoVadis", Associated Press, Jan 30, 2020.
"Honeywell plans spin-off of resins business with Richmond-area operations," Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 12, 2016. RTD is the local paper for the company's main base of operations.
"State and federal authorities converge on Hopewell chemical plant as part of undisclosed investigation," Richmond Times-Dispatch
Esposito, Frank, "AdvanSix helps firefighters in Virginia", Plastics News, May 15, 2019
"AdvanSix halts nylon film making in Pennsylvania, cutting 85 jobs," Plastics News, May 15, 2019.
"Nearly 100 People Out of Work as Plant Near Pottsville Closes its Doors", WNEP, May 3, 2019.
"AdvanSix Expands Operations at Hopewell, Virginia, Plant", Area Development, May 31, 2019. Colin Gerhard (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously going to go through this again? I can't speak to the Richmond articles because they paywalled or something, but Forbes is already out. So get over it. As far as the other two, your AP Press article citation is yet again another company press release from the Business Wire. Whereas, the Plastic News one says "AdvanSix's plant in Hopewell helped purchase two intercom headset systems to improve safety and responses to an emergency. The equipment — valued at $5,000 — will to assist and improve communication for firefighters onboard a fire engine" and that's pretty much it. It should be pretty clear why a plant buying two intercoms for a fire department isn't notable. Neither is them firing people. Every business does that. Or them wining an award (see the corporation notability guidelines). Again, is it that freakin hard to check your citations? At this point it seems like your intentionally trying to pass off bad articles just to get your way. Which is the clearly the reason your unwilling to accept the consensus on the Forbes thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Analyst reports

This 23 June 2017 article^{Internet Archive} from The Fly notes:
Cowen analyst Charles Neivert initiated AdvanSix (ASIX) with an Outperform and a $37 price target saying the ultimate earnings power and likely multiple expansion are underappreciated by investors. The analyst said after the spinoff from Honeywell (HON), AdvanSix will be able to optimize resources and expand earnings through product improvement and eventually acquisitions.
This 6 February 2019 article^{Internet Archive} from The Fly notes:
As reported previously, Cowen analyst Charles Neivert downgraded AdvanSix to Market Perform from Outperform. The analyst said recent subtle changes in industry fundamentals and the macro outlook have made him more cautious. He believes margin pressure will be present throughout most of 2019 based on headwinds from feedstocks, capacity, and a weakening macro versus consensus. Neivert maintained his $33 price target on AdvanSix shares.
This 26 June 2019 article^{Internet Archive} from The Fly notes:
Stifel analyst Vincent Anderson maintained a Buy rating on AdvanSix after the mayor of Philadelphia confirmed an earlier Reuters report that PES intends to permanently close its refinery following the recent plant explosion and fire. In a research note to investors, Anderson, who believes shares of AdvanSix are weak due to the probability that the refinery will go through with the closure, says he does not expect clarity from management for some time, but thinks his estimates should limit downside risk in shares to $2-$4. He says that while it is likely that the increased cost will drive a negative revision to estimates, he continues to view AdvanSix shares as undervalued and with an improving earnings profile in 2020.
This 10 December 2018 article^{Internet Archive} from The Fly notes:
Stifel analyst Vincent Anderson initiated AdvanSix with a Buy rating and a price target of $38. The analyst cites the company's position as a low-cost vertically integrated producer of caprolactam with unique asset base. Anderson also notes that AdvanSix is leveraged to a strong North America Ag market through specialty nitrogen fertilizer with a conservative balance sheet.

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/ASIX/price-target/?MostRecent=0^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
11/19/2019	Cowen	Lower Price Target	Market Perform	$24.00 ➝ $20.00	High	Paywall link
8/15/2019	CL King	Initiated Coverage	Neutral		Low	Paywall link
2/6/2019	Cowen	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Market Perform	$33.00	High	Paywall link
12/10/2018	Stifel Nicolaus	Initiated Coverage	Buy ➝ Buy	$38.00	High	Paywall link
11/23/2018	Cowen	Reiterated Rating	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$40.00 ➝ $35.00	Low	Paywall link
4/12/2018	Cowen	Lower Price Target	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$47.00 ➝ $41.00	Low	Paywall link

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AdvanSix to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The analyst reports from Cowen Inc., CL King, and Stifel Nicolaus are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.
Cunard (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I have zero issue with analysts reports, because like you said they are usually citable, I would consider an article by one that amounts to a simple statement of "I'm changing my sell rating to a buy" as not meeting the whole "in-depth coverage" standard or the rules about neutrality. WP:NOCORP specifically says the source has to have significant coverage. It can't be trivial or temporary opinion (which don't meet neutral POV). As stock price fluctuations or buy/sell recommendations are and are not neutral. A person writing an article being an "analyst" doesn't circumvent those things. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for reliable sources to be neutral. Analyst reports never have "a simple statement of 'I'm changing my sell rating to a buy'" because that would not be useful to the investors who purchase and read them to guide their investment decisions. Analyst reports always have in-depth analysis of why an analyst is making a recommendation. For example, The Fly article about the Stifel Nicolaus analysis said, "The analyst cites the company's position as a low-cost vertically integrated producer of caprolactam with unique asset base. Anderson also notes that AdvanSix is leveraged to a strong North America Ag market through specialty nitrogen fertilizer with a conservative balance sheet." This is a two-sentence summary of the analyst's conclusions which are much more in-depth. Here is a sample analyst report of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. from Morningstar. It contains a discussion of the risks the company faces, a financial overview, and a company overview which are all encylopedic information. Analyst reports follow this standard format.
Cunard (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? Since when does the neutrality of the article or it's author not matter? We can't use articles written by Forbes contributors exactly for that reason and there's a whole list of other none usable just because of their low neutrality. So I have zero clue what your talking about. Things like "the company's position as a low-cost vertically integrated producer of caprolactam with unique asset base" that you cite are essentially just buzzwordy advertisements for the company, and totally not acceptable as encyclopedic content. Know one cares about what their "unique asset base". Let alone how "low-cost vertically integrated" they are, or that they have a "conservative balance sheet." Most people wouldn't even know what those things mean. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise or to say neutrality doesn't matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

All analyst reports are non-neutral sources because their authors advance a viewpoint about the company's performance and support that viewpoint with evidence and analysis. Analyst reports are reliable sources that establish notability because they provide detailed analysis of the company, are independent of the subject, and are published by reputable firms.

This is why Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says about sources that establish notability for public companies: "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

Cunard (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work for investment firms though. They are't random analysts and the guidelines for companies are much higher then the GNG anyway. Most importantly here is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject", " the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose." https://investors.advansix.com/financial-releases/2019/09-04-2019-133025959 and https://www.cowen.com/capabilities/investment-management/ - COWEN HEALTHCARE INVESTMENTS. So neutrality does matter when your talking about something put out by companies that have something to gain from the company the article is about. They aren't just random, financial analyst's that are working independently on behalf of a news organization. I'd also cite Examples of trivial coverage which includes changes in share or bond prices, quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts, expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, capital transaction, such as raised capital. Which is exactly what the analyst reports you cited cover even if it's put in their own words. I'd also say that an "in-depth analysis of the subject", as you put it, is original research. Although in this case since the companies writing the articles are invested in the company it's more like "just say whatever makes the stock price go up." --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I'd also say that an 'in-depth analysis of the subject', as you put it, is original research.", Wikipedia:No original research says that Wikipedia editors cannot engage in original research about a topic. It does not prohibit Wikipedia editors from basing content on independent reliable sources such as analyst reports (or books, studies published in academic journals, and newspaper articles) that engage in original research.

I do not consider an AdvanSix presentation at a CL King conference to disqualify a CL King analyst report from being independent. I do not consider Cowen Inc. having a healthcare fund that may or may not have AdvanSix in it to disqualify a Cowen Inc. analyst report from being independent. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (which is regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) published a page titled "Research Analyst Rules". The page notes:

The aim of FINRA's equity and debt research analyst and research report rules is to foster objectivity and transparency in research reports and public appearances and provide investors with more reliable and useful information to make investment decisions.
In general, FINRA's equity and debt research rules require clear, comprehensive and prominent disclosure of conflicts of /interest in research reports and public appearances by research analysts. The rules further prohibit certain conduct where the conflicts are considered too pronounced to be cured by disclosure. Several of the equity research rules' provisions implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Sarbanes-Oxley"), which mandates separation between research and investment banking, proscribes conduct that could compromise a research analyst's objectivity and requires specific disclosures in research reports and public appearances. FINRA's equity research rules also conform to the JOBS Act (The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act) of 2012.

The page further notes:

This rule governs conflicts of interest in connection with the publication of equity research reports and public appearances by research analysts. The rule requires firms to establish and implement policies and procedures to identify and manage research-related conflicts of interest. Among other things, the policies must separate research from investment banking with respect to supervision of research analysts, budget determinations and compensation of analysts. The rule further prohibits promises of favorable research and analyst participation in solicitation of investment banking business and road shows. The rule also requires disclosure of investment banking and other material conflicts of interest, such as personal and firm ownership of a subject company's securities.

CL King is regulated by FINRA according to this page as are Cowen Inc. (link) and Stifel Nicolaus (link).

The analyst reports are independent because a company's "policies must separate research from investment banking with respect to supervision of research analysts, budget determinations and compensation of analysts" and because policies must "mandat[e] separation between research and investment banking, proscrib[e] conduct that could compromise a research analyst's objectivity and requir[e] specific disclosures in research reports and public appearances".

Cunard (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ironically, the sources given by Adamant1 all clearly demonstrate the company's notability. This should be a keep. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This company has a revenue of $1.4 billion and was formerly part of the Honeywell. Absolutely meets WP:NCORP. It shouldn't even be here at AFD, so keep right away. This almost looks like a bad-faith attempt at trying to take down a competitor. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhmmm, that's a really weird accusation to make and also obviously pretty baseless. If you think the article should be kept, cool. Your free to have your opinion, But maybe leave the attacks of other users out of it next time. Unless you have some actual evidence. That goes for if it's directed at me or anyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AA20 (2020 film)

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

This meets WP:TOOEARLY and a Allu Arjun film released last month The casting section is literally an advertisement (The casting calls for supporting actors who can speak perfect Chittoor slang). DragoMynaa (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The film is under production, it's already completed the first schedule in Kerala. The production house released an official video from Kerala Schedule on the occasion of Sukumar's Birthday.Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOEARLY WP:CRYSTALBALL. Not now maybe close to the release of the film. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 09:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As per WP:CRYSTALBALL, If The Hindu itself is not a verfiable source, then I guess no source in India is verifiable, we have to delete all the pages created based on them. The film itself is notable enough, because of behind the scenes drama and all and even the production is started on the film. What else is needed to keep an article in Wikipedia? Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete @Saichaitanya4496: WP:CRYSTALBALL says that we shouldnt have articles based on assumption that something will become notable in the future. I am not sure which Hindu article you are talking about, but this source doesnt say the shooting of the film has begun. I couldnt find any other reliable source stating that the shooting/principal photography has begun. All I could see was "the shooting will begin without Allu Arjun on the set, and he will join it afterwards. If there are sources saying it has begun, then kindly let me know. But until then, the film fails notability guidelines for future films, and shouldnt have an article. However, this is not the only policy. We can also keep the article if the films passes general notable criteria. But it requires sustained coverage of the film in reliable sources. So far, most of the coverage of film is from telly sites/gossip sites. Other than that, we have press releases, routine coverage about the film, and some passing (but not significant) coverage of the film where something else is being covered. But the film itself lacks significant coverage. Also per nom. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Usernamekiran:, this source says the director is shooting for the film. I guess that's enough as the source is a verifiable one. Any how it's referring the promotional video released by the production house that's why haven't mentioned earlier. Saichaitanya4496 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Saichaitanya4496: Thanks for the link. I am not sure the shooting shown in the video can be considered as "principal photography". I will wait for input from other editors. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 13:00, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Cider

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

There's zero notable about this company. A search for reliable sources comes up with nothing and the article is just a glorified advert for their products. Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically an advertisement DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleaned out the promo portions (list of cider types, mainly). Added a book reference and replaced two local newspaper links with webarchive links. Meets WP:CORP and WP:GNG and there is WP:SIGCOV. More can be done to improve the article, but the subject is notable. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm unsure about this one, as there is some degree of coverage even though it's mostly in review pieces. The argument would be stronger for an article on the company that produces it, as they've got stuff like this article in the LA Times. But it is still not a truly strong argument... PK650 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. References that were added, while RS, are passing mentions. Two local newspaper articles are interviews with the founder. Please review WP:NCORP sourcing requirements, they are not met. Renata (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional sources: [62], [63], [64]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cleanup work by Glane23 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Seems to barely pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 29 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 Actelion. Sandstein 09:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CoTherix

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

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about the company. It only released one product and then went out of business. There's nothing notable or substantial about it online and its had a request for additional citations since 2015 that never got dealt with. Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Actelion. There's a story there. See for example https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/01/29/hypothetical-blockbuster-drug-leads-to-very-real-blockbuster-verdict/#138993559c84 Vexations (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Thanks for suggesting it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per unanimous vote. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with merging.

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appsgeyser

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of previous AFD nom, which somehow no one participated in except the nom. Previous nom's rationale from 2016 still applies: "Very little evidence this meets WP:PRODUCT. Created as a sloppy promotional article, tagged as advertisement since 2013 without anyone coming along to fix it in three years. A few minor third-party sources from around its launch in 2011, but checking Google News shows nothing beyond those other than press releases nobody bit on." Loksmythe (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete For reasons given above. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Despite knowing of the site and service; the article reads like a bad advertisement and doesn't go into detail on the company and service. Plenty of other services out there that don't have Wikipedia pages, so I'd say treat this one no differently. --The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 13:22, 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 redirect to List of Source mods. Consensus that page notability is not established. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kart: Source

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

This was already AfDd once, and despite reaching a delete consensus was apparently never deleted. Granted, there's a couple of additional sources now, but they barely go further than saying the project exists. The vast majority of the sources are either primary, self-published, or both. And to top it all off, the mod was never even finished or released. It seems like it pretty plainly fails WP:GNG no matter how you try to look at it. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Source mods - not enough sourcing or content to warrant its own spinout. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Sergecross and nom, we can merge a few lines to the list. As for the history of the article, it was deleted following the original AFD, but later restored, user draftified, and then pushed back to mainspace. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect WP:NVG is not satisfied. No significant commentary on the subject, and very limited independent sourcing to begin with. It's not a particularly likely search term, but redirects are cheap, given the existence List of Source mods as a good target redirecting edges out deletion. Not seeing any reason to merge, the list already has an entry, and there doesn't seem to be anything notable enough to be added to the existing summary. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 20:31, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the hard way

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. This is a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. I would propose to move it to Wiktionary, but they already have an entry. Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or redirect to English-language idioms. Michepman (talk)
Delete - Per nom, Wiktionary has an entry and that is the appropriate wiki project for definitions of words, idioms and phrases. Per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This does not meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, this is a common saying that's ideally described on a page somewhere else. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pegah Pourmand

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

Substantial claims of notability, but only cited to IMDB or not at all. Turkey Film Festival is a redlink, so no evidence even the claimed award for a film in which she had a role is of uncertain notability for the film, let alone that it propagates as notability for her. DMacks (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any other film or TV credits besides the one mentioned in the article, and that film doesn't seems all that notable anyway. The article claims that she has worked in theatre, but there is no source to confirm that, nor could I find any; but if others can, I will certainly take that on board. She seems to be more of a social media influencer than an actress, with 112,000 followers on Instagram. I don't think she meets the standards for an actress, but maybe others have different views regarding her notability as an influencer. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a cleanup there's no actual references left. A search shows nothing, and definitely nothing RS. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 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 no consensus. Reasonable editors appear to differ on exactly whether this article passes the WP:NACTOR criterion or other more general ones. No strong consensus either way really develops; and given the general agreement that the overall notability of this actor potentially hinges significantly on an upcoming production, it seems like this disagreement can potentially be settled by a renomination in a few months time if this does not bring significant reliable-source coverage. ~ mazca ^talk 15:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Raul Corbo

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

Non notable child actor falls short of WP:NACTOR besides being known for his role as Boyle's son on the comedy series Brooklyn Nine-Nine and his upcoming role as Pauley Perrette's character's son on the upcoming show Broke. This article overall falls short of WP:GNG. Pahiy (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Taking into account his upcoming role in Broke (2020 TV series), I think he might just scrape through with WP:NACTOR. In terms of WP:GNG, he is mentioned in a lot of articles, including Deadline Hollywood, and there are a couple of articles dedicated just to him, although they seem to be local news (in San Antonio). So while it may be WP:TOOSOON, and while NACTOR and GNG may be borderline, I'd be willing to let this article stand and give it a chance.Dflaw4 (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and it is a type of WP:TOOSOON. He has done only few roles so far and his career will rise in near future. Abishe (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't understand the TOOSOON argument; he's got a main cast role in a CBS sitcom that premieres two months from now. Abishe says that "his career will rise in near future", so what's the point of deleting the page in February and re-creating it again in April? -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm a proponent that Wikipedia should remain as consistent as we can reasonably be. This means that if we're close enough that an article on the TV series is allowed, then it's logical to count it for an actor's notability determination. So that's half way there, then its his other performances and the determination of "substantial". Given that there is coverage on him in different roles, I'm going to fall the way of Keep on it. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:30, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Ghent stabbing

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

This incident was not terror-related and no-one was killed. It was a mental health issue. Its occurrence on the same day as a London terror attack is coincidental and irrelevant. Clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill - we're WP:NOTNEWS. Widefox; talk 11:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Nice city, Ghent, but not immune to the social problems common to Western cities. ——SN 54129 11:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wish editors would keep in mind WP:NORUSH for these things. Within an hour of the article being created false information was presented that included a "terrorist incident" and a comment "reported by eye witnesses to be of "a dark skin colour". [65] This is concerning and should be concerning to editors out there who want to maintain Wikipedia's quality standards. The article was rushed to be made with the assumption that this was going to be some huge terrorist incident which it was clearly not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grrrr!! I agree with you here Knowledgekid87! I am very concerned by this article! Whoever copy and pasted over the Streatham stabbing's current events template and forgot to remove the part stating "recent terrorist incident" is a bigoted racist and also a neo-nazi and also that perfectly valid comment "reported by eye witnesses to be of "a dark skin colour" [66] is a clear sign that this editor is a white supremacist and was definitely not just quoting news pages that were clearly pointing to islamic terrorism in their articles on the description of the attacker before they were identified!! Grrrrr! I really am angry I am! I am also very concerned by this! This article goes against WP:CONCERNING! And also WP:NONEONAZIS as well as WP:NORACISM! ANGRYYY!! Bye guys I am now going to go and edit 1000s of grammar mistakes using my bot for probably 17 hours straight to get myself up to the next service ribbon because I need more clout on my user page since it represents who I am because I can't go outside or else people would make fun of me!! Also I am still concerned by this racist editor!!!! Grrr! TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)^[FBDB][reply]
- Are you suggesting that it is somehow racist for somebody to think that the first hint of melanin makes a stabbing "encyclopedic"? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I am, Andreas Philopater. This user is trying to spread racist white-supremacist messages across Wikipedia and I WON'T PUT UP WITH IT. I am very concerned that the quote "reported by eye witnesses to be of "a dark skin colour"" [67] was included in the article and I believe that this has no right to be in the article, nor be the entire subject of it which it clearly is. This quote, also used by the racist Belgian media who are all nazis, was also the reason this racist editor believed this stabbing was worthy of an article when it first appeared in the news and not because it was a quadruple stabbing that happened just hours after the Streatham stabbing meaning it could have possibly been orchestrated by the same group, like the nazi propaganda media suggested, and it is clear that this quote wasn't added because racist neo-nazi news articles were suggesting that this was also another islamic extremest attack by adding the quote in the first place to their own articles (I mean god! The only reason they included it was because everybody cares a lot about what skin colour the attacker was!), and so this editor is an absolute bigot who should be jailed because they believed what was in the news article they read – that this attack could have possibly been another islamic extremest attack like the one that had happened hours before, and so without knowing this 100%, added the quote from the article to subtly usher this possibility before anything had been confirmed, before getting outright bored with the topic and leaving it to be deleted. Grrrr!! I am FUMING!!! And YOU yes YOU should be too! Kind regards and yours faithfully + sincerely, TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's especially strange that it's included in the article but apparently not in the source cited. The only source for it I can find is Russia Today, which is oddly not cited in the article. Perhaps you are right to be concerned about the article's quality. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even more strange is the fact that the article creator, TheBestEditorInEngland, made the edits introducing the then-reported (HLN subsequently changed its article content) suspect's skin colour [68] as well as the unsourced terror allegations [69] [70]. Meanwhile, any link with terrorism is again said to be excluded [71] and the suspect is sent to a forensic psychiatrist [72]. Wakari07 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything other than routine news coverage of the incident, so it fails WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting impact.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, it's an unremarkable event. BTW why is this AFD listed under "Disability related"? I came here from WikiProject Disability's alerts, but I find nothing relevant in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: I'm guessing its the reference to "voices in her head", but I agree that's a pretty 1950s usage of "disability" ——SN 54129 11:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to a Breitbart article on the day of the attack which also (correctly) noticed that the woman is "dark-skinned", this "story is developing..." but the far-right publication stopped developing it when it didn't suit their taste anymore. Her lawyer now says, according to an update article, that the 26-year-old S.C. is from Haitian origin. An adopted child, she started to develop a dislike for her Belgian adoptive family, tried to commit suicide and landed in an institution. Planning to ask money for a project she wanted to start, she rang the doorbell of her former home in the Oranjeboomstraat, where her brother openend, smiling. From that point on, she is said to have lost all memory. She stabbed him with a knife. Then, she rang at other doors in the Korte Rijakkerstraat. When the neighbour of a friend opened the door, she was stabbed as well. Driving away, she noticed a police car and, irrationally thinking that her life was over, she decided that she wanted to die from a police bullet. She then stabbed passers-by in the Bevrijdingslaan, where the story was picked up by world media: i24News, The National, AFP via New Straits Times, DPA via the Weekend Australian, Times of Malta, Metro UK, ... Her arrest was confirmed by the council chamber on Friday. Is there a policy that says such an incident needs to be labeled as terrorism in order to acquire WP:Notability? Wakari07 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wakari07 If various newspapers each separately wrote their own articles about the topic, that would contribute to notability, but when it's the same story (usually by a news agency such as AFP in this case) simply being repeated by multiple publications, they all count as just one source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I noted the agencies. There's the full Agence France-Presse article via New Straits Times, the full Deutsche Presse-Agentur article via the Weekend Australian (which cites Belga) and four other articles: i24 News cites no agencies, The National cites HLN and AFP, Metro cites HLN, and Times of Malta cites local media, AFP and HLN. Associated Press also cited the event in their article on the London stabbing as a side note: AP via Stars and Stripes, AP News. All Belgian media have their own reporting too, but that's generally behind a paywall for me and the public info has little which is not given in the publicly available articles of Het Laatste Nieuws. Wakari07 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wakari07 Perhaps WP:WikiProject Belgium might be able to help you with accessing paywalled sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:07, 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Pickles

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is WP:FANCRUFT, it may have survived a deletion attempt back in 2009, and I think a second attempt at deletion will be the charm. Pahiy (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Hunter Kahn 14:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. I think it's pretty obvious that the main character of a hugely successful two-decade franchise that spans two TV series and several movies is notable. Here's some sources:

Gaines, Caseen; Klickstein, Mathew (June 16, 2016). "The Oral History Of 'Nicktoons', Part III: Exploring The Multigenerational Appeal Of 'Rugrats'". Decider. Archived from the original on March 8, 2017. Retrieved June 25, 2016.
Nolasco, Stephanie (Jan 26, 2019). "EG Daily recalls going into labor during 'Rugrats,' returns to musical roots with empowering 'So Pretty' video". Retrieved 5 February 2020.
Brownfield, Paul (August 16, 1998). "Talk About A Baby Boom". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 10, 2010.
Heffley, Lynne (July 21, 1996). "View From the Rug Up : 'RUGRATS,' NICKELODEON'S ANIMATED HIT, LOOKS AT WORLD THROUGH EYES OF A TODDLER". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 10, 2010.
Rugrats Creator Talks Chuckie's Mom, Passover Episode - Entertainment Weekly, Aug 10, 2016 -- discusses creators' choices around Tommy being Jewish
Berton, Brad (1999-02-02). "Hollywood About to See a Lot More of 'The Rugrats'". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2010-11-10.
Eller, Claudia (2000-11-17). "Rugrats Duo Draws on Shared Vision". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2010-08-24.
Barnett, Laura (2015-06-09). "Creator Arlene Klasky and actor Elizabeth Daily: how we made Rugrats". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-06-11.
"TV's most grown-up babies really grow up in anniversary show", Chippewa Herald-Telegram, July 19, 2001.
"Adults take on kiddie roles", The Windsor Star, Nov 24, 2000.
"Rugrats: Bigger Crawl Space", New York Daily News, Nov 18, 1998.

There's lots more, if you want them. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Rugrats characters. Take out all the plot summary, and you're left with a simple development fact (whom the character was named after) and a couple one sentence bits of reception. There is no significant coverage. The source dump on the article there and above is not providing any real in-depth source on the character- they mention the character in context of the show but not enough for notability. It is wrong to think "hugely popular show, thus should be a notable character" since notability is not inherited. --Masem (t) 05:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Rugrats characters per Masem. Also, the LoC is tagged for so many problems, it's better to cleanup and develop the characters from there, instead of allowing crufty spinoff articles that make the problem even worse. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems every day lately there are a multitude of articles about fictional content being PRODed or nominated for deletion, and I assume a good faith effort is made to search for significant coverage in reliable sources to establish whether a subject passed WP:GNG before such deletions are proposed. In this case, I believe this subject clearly passes this standard, with coverage going far beyond even the sources Toughpigs has idenrified above. Any comments about the quality of the article is a good argument for improving it, not deleting it. — Hunter Kahn 12:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Masem and others. Dumping sources does not prove WP:SIGCOV meriting its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The character list should be built up before any consideration for individual articles is made. It's most probable that the character article can hold everything real world about the characters while providing enough fictional context that an article is not needed. TTN (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article very slightly just to demonstrate that there is more to this character/article than mere plot summary. Please note this is only based on a very few of the sources that cover this character (I didn't even include all the sources Toughpig shared, let alone the multitude of others out there) but I think it already has enough that it warrants a standalone article rather than an disproportionately long list entry. I may try to expand it further in the future, if time permits... — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If we use Characters of Carnivàle as the standard of what character articles should aspire to become, then it seem unlikely that the character needs a separate article. That's especially true considering that not many characters will even have a depth of real world info. TTN (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh, interesting article, I'd actually never seen that one. Though, FA or not, it looks like Ben Hawkins and Brother Justin Crowe can and probably should be made into their own standalone articles, with their specific entries on the list reduced and a template added linking to their main articles. Maybe I'll look into that in the future, but regardless, what another article looks like or doesn't look like doesn't pertain to this discussion, per WP:OTHER. I still think there is signicant enough coverage of Tommy Pickles to pass WP:GNG, and enough content out there that has yet to be added to this article that goes beyond plot summary, and that it should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 14:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Hunter Kahn: Spinning out these characters would unfeature Wikipedia:Featured topics/Carnivàle, in which case I'll make sure myself that the spin-out editor either takes them through the WP:GA process or de-spinouts them to re-feature the topic. Featured topics is what all of en.wiki's coverage should strive towards, and should not be destroyed to justify poor articles like Tommy here. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Sgeureka: Please don't misunderstand, I'm not going to go over and start hacking up that article, especially not just to make a WP:POINT. And even if I did want to change it, I'd certainly discuss it with the primary author of the FA and start a talk page discussion to establish a WP:CONSENSUS before attempting to make major changes to an FA. In any case, I have no intention of doing any of that right now. :) — Hunter Kahn 14:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        How this article compares to a Featured Article is not super relevant to the question of notability. I believe what we're addressing is WP:GNG, which is a much lower standard. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just done a fairly significant overhaul of this article (for comparison purposes, here's the article before the AFD, and here's the version after my edits). I've tried to add sourcing for everything that was in the article, while also restructuring it, rewriting it so it's no longer from an in-universe perspective, and scaling back some of the fancruft and excessive plot summary. (Please note there are still some sections that are unsourced, particularly related to All Grown Up!, so additional work can still be done in the future. I got tired and had to go to bed. lol) I'd like to point out that since I was focused primarily on adding reliable sources to information already in the article, not all of these sources speak about Tommy in significant lengths of time; some are more about Rugrats itself but are used to cite specific facts about Tommy. However, many of these articles do provide significant coverage to the character, and I think this expansion goes a long way toward demonstrating that Tommy Pickles clearly meets WP:GNG and the standalone article is warranted and shouldn't be deleted. I'll also hasten to add that the sources I've added are NOT the only sources about Tommy Pickles out there, and others could still be added to improve this article even further down the road... — Hunter Kahn 06:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Masem, sgeureka, Zxcvbnm and TTN, since you previously voted Merge/Redirect based on the article pre-expansion, or cited the poor quality of the article, I wanted to ping you to see if your opinion has changed given the state of the article now? — Hunter Kahn 06:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over half the reception section is about the full cast, so that shows a clear lack of individual attention. I’m not sure if a free-floating, ever shifting ranking could ever be used as a reliable source. Other than those, the blurb about the film is a trivial momentary comparison that has no reason being in the article. That’s the most important section, but it’s not in good enough shape to show the character has potential. The rest of the information in the article can easily be split between a character list and the main series article when relevant to overall development. TTN (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks TTN. I know in the past I've said you never seem to change your opinion in deletion debates once you've made up your mind, so I genuinely appreciate you taking a second look. I do feel like you're giving a little undue weight to the Reception section alone, which is one I didn't even really bother expanding much because I figured it would be the easiest for someone else to do in the future. Anyone can dump a bunch of reviews into a Reception section, whereas other non-plot sections like Conception and Portrayal are often harder to do if a character is not notable, so sections like that always struck me as more important than Reception. But in any event, thanks for looking it over, and I would urge you to consider that many of the other sources outside of Reception provide much more significant coverage to the character. — Hunter Kahn 12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think what ultimately really matters here is the reception section, since without WP:SIGCOV the article does not need to be standalone. The first sentence is a listicle, so I wouldn't hold that up as a good source since they can really just look desperately for anything to fill their writing quota. The second is a brief, one sentence mention that does not actually concern the character himself. And so on and so forth. None of them discuss the traits of the character in detail or give critical opinions, only stating basic facts about the character. My opinion definitely stands as merge/redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will try to expand the Reception section in the next few days, since it seems I massively underestimated the importance of it and hadn't really put any work into it. But, even if we were to stipulate that the Reception section is currently lacking, and the Character History section should be ignored altogether when considering notability (which isn't something I agree with in any case), do the other non-Reception sections that discuss this character like Conception and Portrayal not indicate WP:SIGCOV in combination with the article's other elements? I know it's subjective, but just seems sort of surprising to me that you guys still don't think this article subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. UPDATE: I've expanded the Reception section a bit in response to the commentary here, though I suspect further sources can be found for additional expansions down the road... — Hunter Kahn 19:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - According to WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN as I understand them, notability is not dependent on the current state of the article, or frantic changes made with a ticking time-bomb deadline. WP:NEXIST says:
        Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.

If there are enough sources in existence that show that Tommy Pickles is a notable subject, then the article should be improved, rather than deleted. Similarly, WP:ARTN says:

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article... If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

So, Hunter Kahn: I don't believe that you need to knock yourself out trying to rewrite the article to other people's individual specifications right now. There is no deadline. AfD is not an article improvement drive, and if people posting on this page are concerned about the quality of writing on this article, then they should channel that concern into making helpful improvements to the article. For this discussion, the relevant question is: do reliable sources exist that talk about this character directly and in detail? -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As I mentioned in the last AFD for this, a major newspaper said at the time: "Tommy Pickles is a bigger star than George Clooney". I look at the reception section and wonder why this is even at AFD again? Reliable sources give significant coverage of him, just look at Tommy_Pickles#Reception and read through that! Dream Focus 19:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination just cites an essay and so there's no case to answer. As the previous AfD was a "keep" and the nomination clearly states that this repeat nomination is being made simply in the hope of getting a different result, the nominator should be warned not to repeat this disruption per WP:DELAFD which states "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources are mentioned now. The article has changed a lot since its nomination. Now the Conception, Portrayal and Reception are mentioned. There are enough reliable sources and there is enough information that is not just plot. The article should be kept. --Dynara23 (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the article now shows that there is enough coverage in reliable, third-party sources to meet the WP:GNG criteria. Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, MAYBE selectively merge The coatrack-y line The Detroit News writer [sic] positively reviewed all the Rugrats baby characters but gave particular praise to Tommy writing: "Ya gotta love 'em, especially leader Tommy Pickles"., sourced to a film review of Rugrats Go Wild, basically sums up everything wrong with this article. The reliably sourced information that relates to this specific topic appears to be almost exclusively in-universe plot content. One could make an OSE argument that Wikipedia has lots of fictional kids' show character articles that are even worse than this one but haven't been deleted/redirected yet, but that would be a weak argument even if any of the above keep !voters were making it.

Looking at the history I see that a lot of the problematic content has apparently been added by said keep !voters since this AFD was opened; their poor conduct and Wikipedia editing standards are not in themselves a reason to disregard their !votes, but they should be weighted accordingly (I don't know what was added by whom, nor do I care to find out, so I won't name names). Moreover, the last two keep !votes by Dynara23 and Aoba47 explicitly cite the addition of this problematic content as reasons to keep this article, so I would encourage any closure to take this fact into account when weighing their comments.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an extremely misleading and inaccurate (not to mention at least mildly insulting statement.) This is the version of the page before the AFD began compared to this, the version at the time that you voted. As anyone could see, the vast majority of additions are not exclusively in-universe plot content. On the contrary, that's what the majority of the previous version of the article was; much of it has been scaled back, and sources have been added to most of what remains. Rather than plot, the majority of the new additions are rather detailed sections about such aspects of the character as its conception, portrayal, and reception, all of which are cited by reliable sources. (Your claim that you "don't care" to find what was added by whom indicates perhaps you haven't reviewed this article's edit history very thoroughly, so perhaps you misunderstood the nature of the additions?) And incidentally, your statement that one "could" make an OSE claim is a straw man argument, because nobody has made that argument. The argument is that this article is cited by reliable sources that indicate significant coverage of the topic, which indicates that it passes WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 13:23, 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. Sandstein 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua–Switzerland relations

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

fails WP:GNG for lack of third party coverage of relations. Most of the article comes from 1 source. https://www.eda.admin.ch/countries/nicaragua/en/home/switzerland-and/bilateral-relations.html LibStar (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not even an embassy. Geschichte (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The relationship between these two countries doesn't seem to be one of the most significant bilateral relationships for either of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no actual rationale for deletion has been provided, and the article clearly fulfills multiple encyclopedic functions. In addition, to respond to this boilerplate nom in the spirit in which it was posted, I will once again note that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed. To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head. The GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable", whether or not a handful of AfD habitués deem it "significant") because it makes far more sense to assign encyclopedic information about Nicaragua-Switzerland relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Nicaragua and Switzerland articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rationale is it fails WP:GNG for lack of third party sources. Have you actually found any sources to back your vote? LibStar (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too wordy, so let me try again. The guideline you cite does not support your claim. AfD is not cleanup. If you want to permanently erase the hard work of other editors, you need to make a better case than this. -- Visviva (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You probably oppose deletion of any article. WP:HARDWORK is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have made an excellent case for delete with everyone but you supporting delete. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, (at least) based on my research, such topic (relationship between two mentioned countries) cannot be in a remarkable/acceptable degree of importance to have an independent page, and does't have sufficient independent sources to support it ... presumably, at most it might can be included/merged into other relevant pages. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: [73] This article offers intriguing evidence that the relationship is notable.--TM 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link.--TM 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We will definitely not find enough reliable sources on this subject to fill out an entire article. Regardless of GNG criteria, it would be pointless to try to make an article with no significant sources dealing with it. Talrolande (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teun Draaisma

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

Apparent claim to notability is making two accurate predictions about the stock market. Other available coverage quotes or mentions him in hiring announcements, but does not provide depth. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Financial Times reported on his moving jobs, which suggests he's significant[74] and also describes him as one of "FT Alphaville favourites"[75]. Given that Alphaville is largely behind a paywall, I'd expect there to be more FT coverage available.Jahaza (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 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. Sandstein 17:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gana Stephen

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

Subject of article per article itself & a before conducted does not show evidence subject satisfies WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be no SIGCOV to establish notability, and he fails the MUSIC criteria. PK650 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure I see that the subject is notable, but 66 million youtube views... Wm335td (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube views are not a notability criterion on Wikipedia, so that argument is invalid. See this discussion for an in-depth discussion. PK650 (talk) 21:53, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Livingstone (cinematographer)

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

Unsourced film editor. Fails:WP Notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 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.

^ Karinna Fernández. Complicidad económica con la dictadura chilena: Un país desigual a la fuerza. LOM Ediciones. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-956-00-1209-8.

[1] ttps://www.rte.ie/rnag/search/?q=conor+mcguinness

[2] ttps://council.ie/serious-concern-in-waterford-over-e3-million-hole-in-council-finances/

[3] ttps://tuairisc.ie/23-de-chomhairleoiri-sa-ghaeltacht-ata-ina-gcainteoiri-gaeilge/

[4] ttps://tuairisc.ie/suil-an-tseabhaic-ar-an-suiochan-sa-bhreis-sna-deise/

[5] ttps://tuairisc.ie/saoranaigh-den-dara-grad-a-ndeanamh-de-mhuintir-na-gaeltachta-ag-an-ngarda-siochana-i-bport-lairge/

[6] ttps://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/waterford-cllrs-agree-to-self-regulate-their-social-media-accounts-976793.html

[7] ttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/what-trends-to-look-out-for-in-the-local-elections-1.3903353

[8] ttps://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fionnan-sheahan-nine-to-watch-in-the-2019-elections-38146243.html

[9] ttps://www.rte.ie/news/post/103122650/

[10] ttp://www.munster-express.ie/front-page-news/council-boss-set-to-look-for-rates-increase-to-plug-gap-politicians-told-to-resist-%E2%80%98running-up-the-white-flag%E2%80%99-in-stand-off-with-government/

[11] ttp://www.munster-express.ie/front-page-news/labour-take-mayoralty-as-part-of-%E2%80%98progressive-alliance%E2%80%99/

[12] ttp://www.munster-express.ie/front-page-news/councillors-vote-to-maintain-local-property-tax-rate/

[13] ttp://www.munster-express.ie/front-page-news/council-facing-%E2%80%98financial-tsunami%E2%80%99/

[14] ttp://www.munster-express.ie/front-page-news/uhw-psychiatric-nurses-say-progress-is-being-made-but-warn-that-it%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98early-days%E2%80%99/

[15] ttp://www.munster-express.ie/front-page-news/council-boss-set-to-look-for-rates-increase-to-plug-gap-politicians-told-to-resist-%E2%80%98running-up-the-white-flag%E2%80%99-in-stand-off-with-government/

[16] ttp://www.munster-express.ie/front-page-news/budget-decision-due-this-week/

[17] ttp://www.corklive.ie/news/what-s-on/369058/free-waterford-event-to-celebrate-irish-language-on-st-patricks-weekend.html

[18] ttps://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/55554

[19] ttps://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/53985

[20] ttps://www.voicemedia.ie/waterford-today/merger-means-longer-waiting-lists-for-children/

[21] ttps://www.voicemedia.ie/waterford-today/we-take-a-giant-step-in-war-on-climate/

[22] ttps://www.waterfordlive.ie/search?q=conor+mcguinness&idcanale=16&idcanalericerca=16

[23] ttps://www.wlrfm.com/2019/11/07/councillor-conor-mcguinness-says-not-enough-in-being-done-to-tackle-serious-drug-dealing-in-the-west-waterford-area/

[24] ttps://www.wlrfm.com/2019/09/30/councillor-claims-pubs-in-youghal-are-using-bottle-banks-in-county-waterford-to-dispose-of-their-empty-bottles-and-waste-glass/?fbclid=IwAR0pgJN3Y6UXPAa0LUmc7Yw8dSTvtM0uXnEbBq-7jE8f5aPHBHa-X6o4bbU

[25] ttps://www.wlrfm.com/2019/08/21/council-working-to-secure-homeless-accommodation-outside-of-waterford-city/

[26] ttps://www.wlrfm.com/2019/11/28/waterford-council-budget-sinn-fein/

[27] ttps://www.wlrfm.com/2019/11/01/an-emergency-meeting-of-waterford-council-has-been-called-to-discuss-a-potential-deficit-of-three-point-three-million-euro-in-the-local-authorities-finances/

[28] ttps://www.wlrfm.com/2019/12/05/waterford-council-will-not-be-receiving-any-additional-funding-to-help-pass-its-budget/

[29] ttps://www.wlrfm.com/2019/09/25/100475/

[30] ttps://waterfordnow.ie/news/no-political-will-to-do-right-by-waterford-councillor-hits-out-as-budget-crisis-deepen/

[31] ttps://waterfordnow.ie/news/19131/

[32] ttps://waterfordnow.ie/news/mindless-vandals-stealing-life-saving-emergency-equipment-at-waterford-coast/

[33] ttps://waterfordnow.ie/business/climate-change-government-failing-to-support-householders-efforts-to-save-energy-waterford-councillor/

[34] ttps://waterford-news.ie/2019/07/10/forced-to-fight-for-your-child/

[35] ttps://waterford-news.ie/2020/01/07/a-council-year-in-review/

[36] ttps://waterford-news.ie/2019/12/18/marathon-budget-limps-over-the-line/

[37] ttps://waterford-news.ie/2019/11/29/the-bother-of-a-budget/

[38] ttps://waterford-news.ie/2019/11/20/government-set-to-ease-councils-budget-crisis/

[39] ttps://waterford-news.ie/2019/10/17/new-bye-laws-crack-down-on-buskers-and-preachers/

[40] ttps://waterford-news.ie/2019/09/11/waterford-politicians-pen-letter-of-concern-over-garda-changes/

[41] ttps://waterford-news.ie/2019/07/18/mount-rushmore-proposal-between-rock-and-a-hard-place/

[42] ttps://waterford-news.ie/2019/05/28/waterford-local-elections-analysis-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

[Fernández-43] Karinna Fernández. Complicidad económica con la dictadura chilena: Un país desigual a la fuerza. LOM Ediciones. pp. 176–. ISBN 978-956-00-1209-8.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[1]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor D. McGuinness}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suthee Minchaiynunt}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Cuarta}}<!--Relisted-->