Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 February 21 February >

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 keep. Per cleanup work by Toughpigs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahitian Terrace

[edit]
Tahitian Terrace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for 11 years. Should be either deleted or merged to former Disney attraction. pbp 23:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of former Disneyland attractions#Adventureland. My search on Newspapers.com turned up one- or two-sentence mentions of this restaurant (e.g., [1][2]), but no significant coverage. My Google search also turned up a few mentions, like this blog post, but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I note that the restaurant's successor, Aladdin's Oasis Dinner Show, already redirects to List of former Disneyland attractions. I don't think there's any content from this micro stub that's worth merging. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I rewrote the article using the following five books and two magazines as sources:
    • The Disneyland Encyclopedia by Chris Strodder, Santa Monica Press (2017)
    • The Disneyland Story: The Unofficial Guide to the Evolution of Walt Disney's Dream by Sam Gennawey, Keen Communications (2014)
    • Secret Stories from Disneyland: Trivia Notes, Quotes and Anecdotes by Jim Korkis, Theme Park Press (2017)
    • The Disneyland Book of Lists by Chris Strodder, Santa Monica Press (2015)
    • The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History by Bill Cotter, Disney Editions (1997)
    • Disney News Magazine volume 7 issue 4 (Fall 1972)
    • The E-Ticket issue 39 (Spring 2003)
    • There's also coverage of the Tahitian Terrace in the book Eat Like Walt: The Wonderful World of Disney Food by Marcy Carriker Smothers, Disney Editions (2017), but I don't own the book, so I've added it to the article in a Further reading section.
I believe that this is enough to demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:29, 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 Server Sundaram (2020 film). (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bijesh

[edit]
Bijesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR. The only coverage available in English consists of softball interviews, routine casting announcements, and PR related to Server Sundaram. I wasn't able to find any coverage of the works written under the subject's pen name. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aishana Singh

[edit]
Aishana Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG ,WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR .Did not have has had significant roles in any of the TV serials and was replaced in early in Santoshi Maa Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaniity

[edit]
Vaniity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Of the references currently in the article, #1 is a fairly substantial profile by The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com), a website which features (a) wild conspiracy theorising on UFOs and aliens, 9/11 trutherism, HIV/AIDS, vaccines, autism, esoteric religions, politics, etc., and (b) articles on transgender issues, sexuality, and sex work. (Check out this archived front page, selected at random:[3]) I am aware that reliability depends on context and that a source may be reliable for some topics and not others, but am inclined to think that the website as a whole lacks responsible editorial oversight. I've just realised that that profile is largely plagiarised from Wikipedia: compare [4] (published in March 2007) with the WP article in February 2007.

The other references are primary sources such as interviews, self-published content, databases, and award rosters; please note that porn industry awards no longer count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only tabloid coverage and listicle blurbs. Cheers, gnu57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Updated 22:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. gnu57 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia policy and guidelines say no such thing. Porn awards no longer count toward notability now that WP:PORNBIO has been deprecated, and notability claims per WP:BASIC, WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO must be attributable to independent reliable sources. Winning porn awards rarely satisfy that requirement. A quick look at the article shows that most of the sources are junk, as the nominator states. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gene93k and The Drover's Wife: WP:ANYBIO states: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Two notable porn industry awards makes the subject pass first requirement. One hall of fame induction from same notable organisation, and one "lifetime achievement" award from another notable awards makes the subject "sort of" pass the second requirement. I am not sure what non-porn industry award can be won by a pornstar, but certainly not Turing award. If one is expecting a noble or Turing for a pornstar, then yes, the subject fails notability. We absolutely shouldn't use WP:COMMONSENSE because the subject hasnt won Turing award. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with this argument is that there was explicit acknowledgement in guidelines that these awards constituted notability and then that consensus was explicitly revoked in an RfC. It's hard not to conclude that a consensus that those awards don't constitute notability in their own guideline as also meaning that there's consensus that they don't constitute general notability as "a well-known and significant award or honor" either, since that would defeat the purpose of the RfC in the first place. I'm conflicted in these cases: I think quite a few of these people, if you did an objective assessment (say, if you were going to create your own publication), probably notable, but reliable third-party source coverage of pornography-related topics is as a whole so abysmal that reliable source coverage just doesn't exist here. If the most we can say about them is that they won a porn award, cited to the awards site, and we can't find anything else about them in reliable sources apart from a handful of random facts usually also cited to questionable source, I think I lean to the position that they probably shouldn't have articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Achievement for WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT requires acknowledgment from an independent and credible source. Winning a porn award generally does not get the performer significant coverage from independent reliable sources. That's why PORNBIO was deprecated in March 2019 and why every appeal to ANYBIO since then has failed at AfD. Even the "Oscars of Porn" gets independent RS coverage mainly for the AVN Expo. That coverage generally does not cover award winners. As for the Turing Award, the award and its winners generally get RS coverage, as a cursory GNews search will show. Commercial industry awards, porn or mainstream, are generally industry self-promotion. There are a rare few that get independent RS coverage as achievements. Porn industry awards are not among those few. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a bit of a troubling rationale for these choices, because there are plenty of fields in which absolutely significant awards aren't exciting that they'll get substantial media coverage, and I would be vehemently resistant if someone tried applying that logic on those articles. I feel like a better differentiation is that usually those people still have WP:RSs of some sort about them, and the award is a good sign of their particular significance; the same might well have been true here except that the general sourcing is utterly absent. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gene93k and The Drover's Wife: thanks for your input guys. You see, you've presented my exact thougts. People from the porn industry rarely get attention of mainstream media. After deprecation of PORNBIO, there were many AfDs of pornstars. But I didnt comment there. However, this subject has won two awards for performances. I agree its not a big deal, and we can overlook that (per the arguments in deprecation of PORNBIO). But hall of fame induction, and lifetime achievement (from different organisations) is a big deal. If it was just one of them, I dont know, but two does establish notability. This is the general reason why we have SNGs in first place. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick count shows that 15 members of the AVN Hall of Fame have been deleted from Wikipedia since PORNBIO was deprecated, and one, Janet Jacme, was deleted shortly before PORNBIO was deprecated. After 13 years of PORNBIO, the new consensus is that porn industry honors are not enough to excuse subjects from needing good references, despite the systemic bias. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are enough claims to notability that its plausible sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists if someone had access to the right sources, but a thorough online search turned up precisely nada. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. Adult industry awards no longer count towards notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting subject, but there's not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC nor is there sufficient evidence of passing WP:ENT. While the publisher of the Agora Cosmopolitan article cited meets the WP:RS standard, the article sources too much of its content from the subject to be considered independent. It's more than most porn bios get, but that's not enough to establish notability. Other coverage, cited in the article or found in independent searching, is pretty much what the nominator states. • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A major chunk of the Agora Cosmopolitan article was copied directly from Wikipedia: for instance, the line Vaniitys' appearance is extremely feminine and even her voice is feminine(which is natural), She claims not to have had any femininity surgeries. was added to the WP article in 2006, and appears word-for-word in the 2007 AC article. Cheers, gnu57 23:37, 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 redirect to James Ferraro#Partial discography. In the absence of reliable sources, redirect is a sensible option. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rerex

[edit]
Rerex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clear (James Ferraro album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

tried to redirect but was reverted. album isn't notable as a standalone, no coverage in reliable sources. fails WP:NALBUM and should be deleted and redirected. Bundling with others because they don't appear to be notable as a standalone. Praxidicae (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all to James Ferraro#Partial discography. Rerex is a reissue combining some previous work into a single release with only one source in the article which reads more like a release announcement and is not substantial coverage. I could not find any other coverage. The Clear album has no coverage of substance either. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is of just as much importance as Clear is and both have enough sources to create a Stub-quality article. They are both of importance in the context of James Ferraro. Eggswowdamn )talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CEL-SCI Corporation

[edit]
CEL-SCI Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Version at time of AfD Nomination—Diff vs. current version)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORGCRITE: provided sources are either primary (2, 3, 5, 6), trivial/routine (1, 7, 8, 11), or published in business publications of dubious reliability and independence (4, 9, 10, n.b. that 9 explicitly discloses that they were solicited by the subject to write the report, and thus decreases my willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to other borderline sources). Searching online turned up more of the same signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable under the GNG considering the quality of sourcing. Also, it was created and mainly edited by a user who might have a connection to the subject and created couple of other closely related articles of questionable notability. So, taken as whole I think it should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also included a source and I think it is far more better then the original state. Also, I read general guidelines mentioned above and it seems meeting the general criteria. I am no expert was just searching about Multikine and landed here and it is interesting. I'll do some more research and add. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.111.218 (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, Nevada

[edit]
Patrick, Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also

McCarran, Nevada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Site of a former ranch, can't find evidence either is or was a community or is notable. Linked sources not useful. McCarran does not even appear on topo maps, and Patrick may have been the name of the train siding at Patrick's ranch. [5][6] Reywas92Talk 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 19:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patrick and McCarran. "Nevada Place Names" says that Patrick was a "non-agency station" on the SP RR and that Patrick is "at the McCarran Ranch". Carlson's references are David Myrick, who wrote about railroads, a Southern Pacific timetable and p. 297 of "Our Nevada," (1940) by Effie Mona Mack. I don't have access to these references, but two of them are railroad-specific. I found no evidence that Patrick was every anything more than a station and as it is non-notable, WP:STATION applies to Patrick. The McCarran Ranch is part of a Nature Conservancy site. BTW - McCarran common name around Reno, the main ring road is McCarran Blvd. and there is McCarran International Airport, all presumably honoring Pat McCarran, the son of the founder of the ranch. I agree that the satellite images show very little current activity. My newspapers.com account expired, so I can't check there. "Nevada Post Offices", (Gannett and Paher) do not list a Post Office at Patrick or McCarran, the nearest Post Office seems to be Tracy Clark Rural Branch Post Office (historical), which is about three miles east of Patrick. "Nevada Place Names" has no entry for McCarran. Cxbrx (talk) 21:04, 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. Routine assault. WP:NOTNEWS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Regents Park stabbing

[edit]
2020 Regents Park stabbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, unlikely to have a lasting effect - WP:LASTING. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. Let us wait and see for about a week. Sachi Mohanty 18:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 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 keep. Looks like there is now sufficient sourcing presented to support the keep votes. Fenix down (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Bengal the Real Power

[edit]
East Bengal the Real Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non encyclopedic article about a football fan club. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, it is one of the biggest and first registered fan club in India. I have used sources for all the data. How can it be encyclopedic? what are missing, excess or wrong in the article? how to rectify them? ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First step is to remove the name dropping. Second is to to reconsider whether the material in section 4 is appropriate to an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, ok. i will remove the name dropping. and the section 4 "Other initiatives taken" are the works done by the fan club. ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I removed the name dropping. ❯❯❯ S A H A 14:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 02:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Last time it got deleted due to lack of sources. So, I have added many reliable sources, (like goal.com, toi, telegraph, etc). It is also notable, and not just a random supporter group. ❯❯❯ S A H A 15:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is your conclusion on this article User:ArnabSaha? You've made a lot of comments, but you've not "voted". Nfitz (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, since I created the article, obviously I will vote to keep it. ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people create articles but then vote merge or redirect before - with even the very occasional delete. I'd suggest doing so clearly, as some closers don't really pay enough attention and just count votes. Nfitz (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, ok ❯❯❯ S A H A 17:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 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 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

[edit]
Balaja Abdurrahmanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu Salavaithozlilalars Party

[edit]
Tamil Nadu Salavaithozlilalars Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORGCRIT due to lack of sources discussing the subject. Existing refs are a blog and another site that did not give anything on the subject. DBigXrayᗙ 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 16:18, 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 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tupocracy

[edit]
Tupocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

new neologism, no evidence "Tupocracy" is a notable or even real term and this is all original research. The few sources that even contain the word aren't reliable and the rest make no mention of "Tupocracy" Praxidicae (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Wide Films

[edit]
World Wide Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced articles and solid peacockery are addressable issues but I'm not convinced that this company meets WP:GNG. TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chao Dream Touch! Happy Anniversary

[edit]
Chao Dream Touch! Happy Anniversary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game does not appear to be notable. The article does not cite sources. In my search for sources, I found Wikipedia clones and products listings (eBay, Amazon, etc - and not all too many of them) but not independent reliable sources covering the game. Eostrix (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 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 20:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pulau Besar Museum

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pulau Besar Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG and ORG. Nothing in gnews for both English and Malay names. One would expect a museum that has been open for 9 years would get some coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I checked and found a couple of references but agree than nothing notable. Lonley planet guide was one. Another was a passing mention in a research handbook, but nothing demonstrates notability. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 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 merge to Zero (art). (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZERO foundation

[edit]
ZERO foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Google returns very little, GNews the same. Some small articles about the organization, like this, but I don't think there's notability even if Robert Rauschenberg used their place as a workspace. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:51, 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 speedy delete as promotional copyvio. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

0-INSTITUTE

[edit]
0-INSTITUTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not turning anything up on GNews; Google itself returns some links to their site and Vimeo channel. That's it. Doesn't pass WP:GNG/WP:NORG Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 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. Community consensus has now shifted against including "dumping ground" collection articles of in-universe descriptions of non-notable fictional elements from notable franchises. This AfD is one of many to illustrate this. Because of the concerns expressed, I'm not at this time unlinking backlinks or deleting redirects, so people who care can find another franchise-related article to redirect these search terms to. Sandstein 20:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Autobots

[edit]
List of Autobots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list no longer has any utility. The series previously had somewhere between 600-1000 character articles. It now has 20. There are also around 20 character lists, so this is not a necessary navigational list. Autobot can hold a small list of blue links if that's actually necessary. This is just a barebones list of names, and even that is useless because most of these characters have two to three different versions due to most of these series being completely different continuities only sharing some core character concepts. Due to that, this cannot function as a proper navigational hub without being even more of a mess than its current incarnation. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list has issues, but I don't think circular redirects are a fair basis for deletion. Those can be overcome with some simple edits. -2pou (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as pointed out by JPL, a bare list of names consisting of circular redirects serves no purpose- navigational or otherwise. Reyk YO! 20:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not all the character lists include affiliation information (see: List of Transformers comics characters). The number of blue links in the list isn't important - the topic of Autobots is notable, therefore not all members on the list of Autobots need to be notable. The reason there are a lot of circular links is because many deletion discussions ended as "merge to List of Autobots" and is not in itself a valid reason to delete the list. The idea that it's of no purpose to non-fans isn't a valid reason to delete either - it's a tautology that readers only have an interest in articles on subjects they're interested in.
Could the list be better organized? Yes. Would it be better if there was some inclusion criteria beyond existence? Probably. Nuking this list would make it extremely difficult create an improved version. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reasoning for keeping a mention of characters that do not appear in the TV series?Halbared (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because Transformers is much more than a TV series. It's a toy line first, a comic book second, and a TV series third. Contrary to what you might think, the TV series is not everything Transformers ever was. JIP | Talk 08:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Best you don't assume what I do or do not know about TFs. There is a page about TFs that links to a dedicated TFwiki for the detail. There doesn't seem to be a notable/valid reason put forward as yet for listing every TF.Halbared (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we should list every Transformer, but it feels kind of artificial to limit the listing to those who appeared on the TV show, as I haven't seen any mention of the TV show being some authority over Transformers, especially since the comic book predated it. JIP | Talk 10:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of Transformers comics characters exists. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to restate that we are not Wikia, the information is useless to new readers and fans alike if the content can not be properly presented from an outside point of view (WP:INUNIVERSE). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (extremely weakly) or worst-case Merge to one of the List of Transformers, if I have to pick one, let's say List of The Transformers (TV series) characters. Ideally, I'd rather say, Hold in a holding cell, but I don't know if that applies to AfDs or if that is exclusive to WP:TFD/H.

    First let me say that I don't think this list is truly necessary. However, my reservations on deleting it are rooted in a pretty big overall procedural concern, and not one regarding the content (or potential content) of the list.

    Checking the Talk page, at least 11 articles have gone to AfD and there was consensus to merge them into this list. I presume that there were also some that ended in a "Redirect" consensus as well, but I am not going to dig into that information to search for a number. Let's just go with "11+". 11+ articles were discussed through AfD alone, and the consensus among those discussions was that those particular articles did not merit a standalone article, but they were notable enough that outright deletion was not an acceptable solution, so a merge was to be done. I understand that WP:CCC, but I believe that would apply more to follow-on AfD nominations for specific articles. For a scenario such as this, we should at least WP:PRESERVE the data until a point at which someone can safely say WP:DON'T PRESERVE. In my mind, it is VERY IMPORTANT to proceed carefully to reach that point. If this list is deleted, all of those Merge and Redirect articles are going to be automatically deleted along with this list via WP:G8. That is unacceptable. With the preserved data of those articles gone, a new target cannot be established easily. What is the point of Wikipedia operating on consensus-based policies if it cannot uphold the consensus?

    In order to safely say WP:DON'T PRESERVE I think at least those 11 articles should be evaluated for a suitable new merge location and retargeted before this list is deleted, or they can all go to RfD to get a new consensus there before this list is deleted. Ideally, that would really be done for all the AfD's that resulted in a Redirect, but that may be a little much to overcome. Regards, 2pou (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the existing redirects can't just be re-targeted now or when the AfD is done so long as it's noted for the closer. They'd be better placed in one of the lists with actual content anyway. And if there's currently no list for them, one can be made on whatever piece of media features them. TTN (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No arguments there; I was mainly just suggesting that 11+ evaluations might be better served outside any 7-day high-stress, high-pressure (IMO) timelines that AfD generates amid people lives outside editing. If a note to closure works, that is fine too; I have just not seen that before. -2pou (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AMP Technologies

[edit]
AMP Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass notability as nothing comes up in Google for it and the sources in the article are all trivial coverage. Also, edited by a single article editor. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Stencil

[edit]
Bob Stencil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated expired PROD from 2006, hasn't improved since, seems to fail NFICTION/GNG. Ping User:JaneciaTaylor who endorsed the prod before. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wildcats (comics). RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Orange (Wildstorm)

[edit]
Agent Orange (Wildstorm) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. The de-PROD only added primary sources. TTN (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. The previous AfDs seemed to hinge on the usage of D&D inspiration in other similar games, but that rationale seems lacking. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if the usage of D&D monsters in other publisher's books, such as Paizo, could be considered independent (which I, personally, don't think they are, as they were being used under Wizard's Open Gaming License), they are still not actual coverage about the creature that would denote notability. They are simply in-universe usages of the creature within the game. Outside of game books, the only coverage this creature gets are a few brief mentions in "top ten" style fluff pieces, which are not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Likewise, the dearth of coverage would indicate that this particular version of the creature is not notable enough to be mentioned on the article on the mythological creature, so merging is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, failing that, merge and redirect: The Monsters Know What They're Doing has four pages on the lamia, including - aside from the game-use analysis that book always provides - quite a bit about creative origin and typisation. There is the extensive ENworld article cited in the article, and it seems Rorshacma found a few minor mentions. Of Dice and Men also mentions it in a humorous context, but only quotes the description from a primary source. So there are secondary sources. If these are not deemed enough for keeping its own article, it should be merged and redirected e.g. to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters or the lamia article, because loosing the information present has no benefits, while those articles are lacking that information. Daranios (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AKVA Group

[edit]
AKVA Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet GNG guidelines. The only sources are primary and have to do with their products and everything in Google search seems to be trivial. Plus, the page is essentially just a list of their products and really nothing else. Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Management Group, LLC

[edit]
Capital Management Group, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally not notable company. It was only around for a few years and there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources out there to give it in-depth coverage. Also, the paragraph in the article is directly copied from the article on it's former CEO and the main editor of it was probably paid. Adamant1 (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIA Group, LLC

[edit]
AIA Group, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't meet GNG and fails NCORP. What is out there is just stock price changes or press releases. Plus, it was created and mainly edited by a single user that only edits things related to the company or its CEO. So it's clearly meant for promotional purposes. Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Isaiah

[edit]
Darren Isaiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. It is essentially a lot of original research, with no sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get a Life (Soul II Soul song)

[edit]
Get a Life (Soul II Soul song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG - all references just chart listings, can't find any significant coverage. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: apart from this song being a big hit in numerous countries, Soul II Soul were arguably the biggest R&B/dance group in the world at this point, having had major success worldwide (including in the US) with their previous single "Back to Life" and its parent album Club Classics Vol. I – this was the lead single from the highly anticipated follow-up album and received a lot of coverage in the music press at the time. Just because it's not on the internet, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist... you just have to go looking in back issues of music magazines to find it. Richard3120 (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queppelin

[edit]
Queppelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undersourced company profile created by COI editor. Ref#1 is a simple listing, #2 is an interview-based advertorial, #3 is a passing mention and #4 is a promotional YouTube video. None of these sources establish notability, a Google search revealed no other promising in-depth sources (news coverage consists of press releases, interviews and other PR activities) - no evidence that this company meets our notabilty guidelines. Note: I have removed some other links that were equally unsuitable for encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:37, 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lycanthrope (film)

[edit]
Lycanthrope (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:NFILM and lacks significant mentions in reliable sources. Completely unsourced and WP:OR. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:16, 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 to delete. BD2412 T 00:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaël Duval

[edit]
Gaël Duval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 [9] 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]
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 [10], [11], 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]
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). [12] (though it does list an editor in chief). There was non-consensus on reliability in previous discussion.[13] Did you see the Vroom section at Numerama (similar to cars.com)?
Re: "two notable projects". The French wikipedia article on Mandriva[14] 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 [15] 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 [16], 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]
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]
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. Possibly a notable topic, but not very useful in its current form. The title may be more suited to a disambiguation page. – bradv🍁 05:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idol (pop culture)

[edit]
Idol (pop culture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page copies Japanese idol and Korean idol; these articles already exist in respect to their own countries, so this seems like a duplicate article. lullabying (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This would also move the (country idol) entries off the Idol (disambiguation) page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters

[edit]
List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Characters in a WP:MILL anime series that is "based on dinosaurs and explosions". Almost entirely unsourced, except for a bit of trivia which could also be added to the main article. Fails WP:N, WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT. No indication that these characters as a group, or any of them (as opposed to their anime series) have been discussed in depth in reliable sources. I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sources, though. At any rate, the natural habitat for such fancruft are fan wikis. Sandstein 09:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Slashme: Borderline notable? You kidding me? Super Sentai lasted for decades and their annual sales are billions of yen. ミラP 15:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ミラP 15:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to draft space and remember to preserve the full edit history of the articles that were merged. If someone believes they can fix the article, then they should be given time to try. Dream Focus 22:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I lack the Japanese or anime fandom skills to perform a proper search for sources says it all: our latest Signpost report states that, There have been many articles on notable topics deleted here simply because we didn't have access to the sources in Japan. The deletion process here is extremely biased against non-English sources and topics. If it hasn't been discussed in an English-language source, there are a fair number of editors who have to be reminded that sources are not required to be in English, and that it is much more difficult to get sources from a country where there has been less effort at getting older sources online. It's live-action, not anime, and explosions are routine in the franchise. ミラP 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to draft space and remember to preserve the full edit history of the articles that were merged. Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 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 delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of Jimmy Century

[edit]
Fans of Jimmy Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Nothing turned up in an internet search and a Rock's Backpages search. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
signed, Twentyfourhustle —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 6 February 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
Virtually everyone is listed on AllMusic, so that doesn't mean much (although a review on there would count as a single source towards GNG). I'm not sure I see what you're pointing out in the Google search, the top results are not secondary coverage of the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article does not fall within WP:DP and meets WP:GNG. Per WP:V, the content of this article, to include the band's existence, can be easily verified by a multiplicity of reliable sources utilizing internet search engines. Furthermore, this article meets WP:GNG per WP:MUS.
Spooky52 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As written, I don't think a single one of the currently cited sources contributes towards GNG. The only independent coverage is mere mentions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is recommended Keep this article. Before deleting allow an editor to update sources. There are plenty of reliable sources easily available. Spooky52 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Allmusic is a reliable source, however, I have heard that this is true only if the site of said band also includes a biography. This is not true in this case, since it lists only their discography and related stuff. When only the discography is listed on Allmusic, I think they are on the same level as databases like Rate Your Music, Sputnik Music, Spirit of Metal etc. Prove me wrong, this is just what I heard.
GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is recommended to Keep this article given that AllMusic.com cannot guarantee that any artist will have biographical data available and as such no metric exists. Given this uncertainty, it would be logically flawed to allow articles with bio data to remain while deleting others. Given that Allmusic.com is considered a primary source caution should be exercised and error should be on the side of caution instead of deleting this article. Ref https://www.allmusic.com/faq/topic/submitbio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spooky52 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Iyamu

[edit]
Thompson Iyamu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Iyamu doesn't appear to be notable under his stage name or real name. The sources are largely puff pieces and otherwise unreliable (especially those that I removed, which are part of a black hat SEO spam group and entirely fake.)

None of the remaining sources are in depth coverage, they're interviews or pieces unattributed to any actual editor from those papers. A search reveals more of the aforementioned "fake" news sites (like this one, who's editorial staff are stock images and famous people's photos) or press releases and interviews and his 4 self published books do nothing to establish notability. Praxidicae (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those sources are fake news outlets from blackhat SEO firms. Praxidicae (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Quarterto500: SIGCOV and GNG only applies to wp:Reliable sources, not any old crap that google search returns. This is the specific with which we are dealing that there is paid editing and puff pieces that are not reasonable to use in an encyclopaedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources cited are from widely known Nigerian newspapers. Graygraphiticus (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sir, the Benin royal family is in Nigeria, not the country of Benin. Mr. Iyamu is clearly notable as a member of a historic royal family. His presence is very well-known in Nigeria, and no Nigerian in his right mind would ever want to delete an article of a royal family member who with a notable career abroad, unless he has some hidden agenda against him. Graygraphiticus (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep unsourced crap in the hopes that it can be fixed later. Read WP:BLP and WP:V. Praxidicae (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First of all, it is highly inappropriate to refer to a person of Benin royal descent as cr*p. That can get you into very serious trouble for lèse-majesté in some parts of the world. The Edo people had traditionally considered the Oba of Benin to be divine and held his family in very high esteem. Today, Edo people of royal extraction contribute to Nigerian and global societies in many ways as statesmen, educators, role models for our communities and defenders of our cultures.
This is deeply offensive to us Nigerians and reminds us of the time when Donald Trump used a very vulgar word to refer to Africa. Furthermore, your careless remarks bring to mind the Punitive Benin Expedition of 1897, when the British desecrated our royal families and plundered our Benin Bronzes. They tried to put an end to our centuries-old Kingdom of Benin, but we persisted and today have good relations with the British. But we are still hurting from the way oyibos (foreigners) have treated us. Please mind your words and bear our troubled history in mind.
Finally, I am not angry at you. I extend a warm handshake to you and all of the Wikipedians as a friend and brother. Should you ever want to get to know more about us, I will cordially invite you to the modern-day Kingdom of Benin, one of the richest, most fascinating and most enduring cultures in all of Africa. Graygraphiticus (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep: I randomly came across this while curating articles on Edo history and just had to comment. I do not know what Praxidicae is talking about when he says fake sources and unsourced. WP:BLP and WP:V are very clearly satisfied here, with Thompson Iyamu being featured in multiple major Nigerian newspapers. Ask any Nigerian about these newspapers and he or she can confirm that these are major legitimate newspapers which everyone in Nigeria knows about. In Nigeria, they are the equivalents of The New York Post and The Telegraph. One of them is in fact almost 100 years old. These Nigerian newspapers are all covered on Wikipedia.

These are reliable sources that have dedicated entire articles for featuring Thompson Iyamu.

Here is the template of major Nigerian newspapers in case you are still not convinced:

So let me clarify a few more things. I was browsing and editing through many articles of Edo history and prominent Edo people when I suddenly came upon this article by chance. I don't know who wrote this and how this all started, but as a Nigerian of Edo heritage who actually knows about Edo (Benin) society, I just have to point out that any Nigerian will be able to tell you that this article should clearly not be deleted. Besides being known from his music career in the UK, Thompson Iyamu is from the prominent Akenzua family of Southern Nigeria, which is a historicaly important family that Nigerians from that area all know about.

So even though I don't personally know this family, any Nigerian from that part of Nigeria who is well grounded in Edo history is going to know about Akenzua II and his family. To my dismay, none of the voters here know anything about Nigerian families, Nigerian culture, or Nigerian media sources. Some of the opinions and claims here are blatantly incorrect.

We all know too well that the blatant systematic bias on Wikipedia (WP:WORLDVIEW) allows for topics in developed countries to thrive on Wikipedia, while African topics are not only underrepresented, but also often unfairly treated and purged due to all sorts of arbitrarily interpreted policies that often do not fit well into the African context. While Royal British and Scandinavian family members with notable careers in the arts have a very easy time, the fact that African royal family members with notable careers in the arts are harassed like this points to a deep systematic bias that the Wikipedia community seriously needs to address.

Have you ever wondered why the current members of the British royal family are not being similarly harassed on Wikipedia? Because of WP:BIAS. The Wikipedia community at large is predominantly non-African and has very little knowledge of how to properly select and curate encyclopedia articles that would be useful to Africans. Every month, notable Africans who have made invaluable contributions to society are deleted, while fake pastors, fraudulent businessmen and corrupt politicians of no obvious notability are allowed to thrive.

And royal family member or not, this is a musician and actor who clearly belongs in an online reference work, like Thompson's relative Peju Layiwola, also of the well-known Akenzua family. Touring with Weird MC, appearing in many notable films, and other films, he is also notable abroad. Back home, any Nigerian you meet in Benin City will tell you that this person is clearly not a nobody who should not be on an encyclopedia.

If there are any inadequecies, I will volunteer my time to improve the article's content and citations.

I am only giving my honest opinion here. I hope you will all think twice before saying that this article deserves to be deleted.

So keep this my brothers. Let's contribute to the encyclopedia, build our community and help the world with free, useful knowledge. Graygraphiticus (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Days of Our Lives characters (1990s). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Alamain

[edit]
Lawrence Alamain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this fictional character passes NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Lawrence Alamain was well known as a controversial villain on Days of Our Lives; the character raped a woman, and then (as happens sometimes in soap operas) became more popular following the assault. There are many contemporary newspaper stories about the character, including:
I think that's enough to show notability. I'll add these to the article in a "Further reading" section so that people who want to improve the article can use these sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Days of Our Lives characters (1990s), no WP:NOTPLOT-failing stand-alone article necessary per WP:NOPAGE. No prejudice against recretion if someone actually wants to write a proper article on him, but it's already been 12 years where that hasn't been the case, so I am not confident this will happen. – sgeureka t•c 08:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IMPATIENT says that an article shouldn't be deleted just because it hasn't been improved over a specific period of time: "The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future." To establish notability, it's enough that reliable sources exist (WP:NEXIST) that could be used to improve the article. The sources listed above demonstrate notability; they're now listed in a Further reading section to help editors who want to improve it. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles also shouldn't be created before such a time where they can stand on their own. No rush works both ways. That argument only works for a topic that has no parent article structure because it would thus be completely removed from this site, which would be a negative to the encyclopedia. It does not work for fictional items that can be easily covered in their parent topic until such a time they can be split, or it can allow for the organization of information in such a way that it doesn't need to be split. TTN (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sgeureka. The topic has not received the proper attention it needs to be stand alone, and something that has a parent article should indeed be applicable for removal after a certain amount of time. Building block sources can be placed on the talk page of the page to which it is redirected. TTN (talk) 12:25, 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. Editors don't agree as to whether the sources identified meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLVD Place

[edit]
BLVD Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a mixed-use development fails WP:NGEO. Many of the references read like press releases and therefore, in my opinion, they should not be considered independent of the subject. Also, many of the sources are from before the development was fully constructed, which calls into question its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance according to WP:NBUILD.  Bait30  Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERX LibStar (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a WP:ROTM development. According to the article, its claim to fame is that it's the biggest development in Uptown Huston (note, that's a business district, not half of the city). Most of the sources are regurgitated press releases, and almost half of them are now dead links. There's no real claim of notability. --Slashme (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Gnews just reveals passing mentions or something that happened at an individual shop of the development. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily passes notability per multiple sources that all date from well after the center's completion. The coverage easily extends beyond the everyday and shows that the center is notable. WP:ROTM is not policy, and "happened at an individual shop of the development" is kind of how malls are supposed to work. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:01, 28 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oaklee Pendergast

[edit]
Oaklee Pendergast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable child actor. But no reliable sources were found. Ni3Xposite (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ni3Xposite (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PayActiv

[edit]
PayActiv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional and borderline non-notable The combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a reason for deletion

With respect to notability , most of the references are either articles about the general problem, or essentially press releases, or mere notices. . The NYT article mention this firm among others, as does CNN & the WSJ--they do not amount to significant coverage. The Forbes article is by a "contributor"--a press release they taken o responsibility for. The awards are minor, and not of general significance. As for promotionalism : most of the article is advocacy about the need for an organization such as this one, all throughout the article, & particularly in section 2. The article gives promotional features of the company's plan, addressed only to prospective users, ( " all employees are eligible from day one") It's written in a manner appropriate to a web page, ("financial wellness" ; "responsible and sustainable man". The company name is used over 20 times in the short article. .

Normally on seeing such an article I'd move it into draft space. But it already was in draft space, and the author moved it into main space themself, thus defeating the the purpose of having the article reviewed. I should note that the ed. is not usually a promotional editor, but works competently on reasonable subjects in the field of entertainment; I cannot account for this exception. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: LucyArn has now provided the proper disclosure of paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotion "solution is offered as a financial wellness service ", "provides a holistic financial wellness solution to its users", "all from their mobile phone", "advocated for earned wage access", "to better deliver services to users", "a voluntary financial wellness benefit"?! This is nuts.
    As for the sources, The New York times dedicates three sentences to PayActiv, the LA Times about 15% of their article. Its not much better for the other ones. None of this is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article consists largely of marketing buzzspeak, probably introduced by the paid editor. If the buzzspeak is deleted, not much is left, probably not enough to establish corporate notability. My advice to the paid editor is my usual advice to paid editors, which is that if all of the promotional content that they are paid to put in an article is really removed, there will be little remaining value to the article, so that it is a better expense of corporate money to improve their own web site, which is not edited by neutral volunteers. It isn't the job of neutral volunteers to try to help paid editors write something neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find much to indicate the company is notable. Dorama285 (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian Cherry Blossoms

[edit]
Humanitarian Cherry Blossoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination to stop editors from edit warring over whether it should be in draft space. The sources in the article are nowhere near WP:GNG. It doesn't look like there's any coverage in English, and I was able to find some trivial coverage in Japanese. I wasn't able to search in Lithuanian, which is another language that may have coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until ready for main space. --Slashme (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable opera. Chiune Sugihara is notable and this play is not. In addition, there is no significant coverage in Lithuanian language aside from some mentions about the opera's playing date and links to ticket websites to see the play. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've cleaned it up and found a couple of sources, but not nearly enough to establish notability. As Sabbatino, says, they are basically announcements of performances—no reviews or even background stories. At most, a brief mention could be made in the legacy section of Chiune Sugihara (the opera's protagonist). I'm not sure, its worth draftiying unless there is a significant chance of finding further sources which could establish notability. I sincerely doubt it. Incidentally, there have been two other earlier operas based on Chiune Sugihara, an equally non-notable one in English called Incident in Lithuania (2006) [17] and a somewhat more notable one composed by Toshi Ichiyanagi (2006) [18]. There was also the musical Sempo, composed by Miyuki Nakajima (2008) [19]. Leaving the article as a redirect to Chiune Sugihara#Legacy is also a non-starter, because it is very unclear what the actual English title is. Voceditenore (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 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 redirect to Software Technology Parks of India. MBisanz talk 21:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omkar Rai

[edit]
Omkar Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All available coverage covers Rai in the context of, and generally as a spokesman for, Software Technology Parks of India. I don't think that GNG has been met. Thus, I think that redirect to Software Technology Parks of India is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 06:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWatch Subject is an individual and redirect is an organisation. Both serve different purpose as [STPI] is a policy making body responsible on dealing India's IT export. However subject is key IT policy maker and was earlier chief of SEZ India and commissioner SEZ . Redirect will not suit if he moves to different org. cheers. RufinaSmith (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RufinaSmith (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Forrest, Arizona. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Spur, Arizona

[edit]
Paul Spur, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There used to an industrial spur from Forrest, Arizona to this place, but in spite of an array of black squares on old enough topos which look like a town, aerials show that this was always and only some sort of industrial concern (a lime plant, various references tell me), and not a settlement. There is some reference to the place in historic discussion of the rail line (the plant was the last customer on the line) but I'm not seeing that as giving notability. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with this. When checking this out I found reference to a cemetery, but everything seems to show this area as an annex to Forrest. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Steve Smith (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Mahila Congress

[edit]
All India Mahila Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is only one source in the article. The source is not enough for WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Even, via google search it does not seem to me that it will pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a quick Google search shows ample RS and proves its notability. See no reason why it fails GNG. New sources can always be found and we shouldn't judge the article only based on the sources it includes and improvements can always be made. Most important is the notability of the subject. Therefore keep but the article needs rewriting. The sources: [20][21][22][23][24]. Just a minor search and I found loads of sources.

--WikiAviator (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The first one is its activities. In the other sources it gets almost mere mention.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed all these sources by WikiAviator and none of them are passing ORGCRIT. They are passing mention or ROUTINE news of a statement of the office bearers or party event. (see analysis below.)--DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral:*Keep: At a rough glance nom. has swamped WP:AfD with a shedload of AFD's that should have been at best bundled; or perhaps a test case for one regional branch that could have been spread to the others. This is the central organisation which should have been kept in any event. This may even qualify for a speedy keep. Its easier for me being more familiar with UK politics to see how organisations related to political associations are treated ... in general these are often retained but I wouldn't expect the local branches to be retained, situation for semi-automonous regions might be different. In passing I note the BJP's BJP Mahila Morcha has slipped the net and been deleted with minimal participation. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Recusing due to risk of sanctions if I continue. I am shut up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My search for sources clearly shown notability for the All India Mahila Congress, but the local branches could redirect to the main article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article for the national congress, adding a paragraph about the state committees, and then redirect all the state committees (also nominated at AfD, and such poor little stubs that they don't even indicate why they have been listed as "women-related", to those of us unfamiliar with Indian politics) to this article. PamD 09:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My best understanding, with assist of Google Translate, is Mahila is Hindi for female, but I am open to correction. Pragmatically I had assumed this from context.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC) (I'd also almost be so bold as actually suggest considering this as "All India Women's Congress"). Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Thought: Also possible Mahila is a valid word in Indian English dialect, isn't on Wikitionary currently though as far as I can tell.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor point I've now created wikt:mahila, though I have some nervousness if I have done it right and it will stick; but given apparent usage in Indian English and these titles seems reasonable.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mahila is the Hindi equivalent of woman. Can we now focus on this AfD and see some source passing WP:ORGCRIT ? --DBigXrayᗙ 09:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: Pragmatically I personally evaluate this AfD is currently at the point where any closer evaluating a consensus to delete would be taken to the WP:DRV WP:TROUT farm, although things may change. With that triage evaluation I thus may choose to do other things such as brock watching. I will quite likely of course receive the last word. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
? focus on the content please. DBigXrayᗙ 09:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that instead of providing sources meeting WP:ORGDEPTH Djm has left the AfD, saying so in edit summary. DBigXrayᗙ 12:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. Also agree with PamD, the state committees should just be merged with the main article (currently a stub) and a substantial article can be created with just all citations there are already in the state committees combined. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Tayi Arajakate and Cwmhiraeth, and all others, can you guys be so kind enough to share what sources are you using to vote a keep on this ? I have reviewed the sources by WikiAviator and none of them are passing WP:ORGCRIT. I have reviewed several of these articles since they were nominated en masse and it is clear to me that they are political spam created for WP:PROMO reasons of Indian National Congress party. IMHO almost all of them merit a deletion for lacking any worthwhile content (saying "almost all" since I am yet to review all of them) --DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will do a deeper research on this later but right now I found [25] after a short search. I believe this is notable enough to have its own article, being the women's wing of a major Indian party. Putting a comment to bookmark this AfD for later. I remember vaguely that Sucheta Kripalani founded this sometime before the Quit India movement. That would make this a 75+ years old organisation and it is highly improbably there will be no description of this over so many years.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The link you gave says it was founded in 1984. So clearly your link disagrees with your vague memories. The link above covers the date and reasons for formation of this WP:BRANCH from its charter (party sources that are primary and dependent). We would need significant independent coverage to keep. Indian National Congress is Notable, its numerous sub organisations may not be popular (read notable). Per WP:BRANCH, if an independent page is needed the individual SIGCOV must be shown. If sources meeting WP:ORGDEPTH are lacking, then the page must be redirected to the parent organisation. DBigXrayᗙ 08:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point was precisely the disagreement over founding date. The links says founded in 1984 but I remember reading about its pre-independence origins. More research is required for this. In any case, if you believe this should be redirected, please feel free to cast your !vote.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The date when this "wing" was created is 1984, there is no disagreement over it. Provide links that says otherwise if you have, your memories are not RS. I have already said that this should be redirected since nothing that I found or the others have presented merits a separate page. Even its parent org, does not find it worthy of its own website [26]. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray,DreamLinker Here are the two sources (links)1, 2. They say the Mahila Congress was founded by Sucheta Kripalani in 1940.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Akhiljaxxn, thanks for the ping, The Mahila Congress Akhil is referring to is the historical one and not the one currently existing. I hope folks know that the Congress (I) is not the same as Congress of Nehru. For those who dont know can read it here on Indian_National_Congress#Indira_era_(1966–1984). The subject of this AfD is the All India Mahila Congress (I) , although the I is no longer used. And this particular one was started in 1984.⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding the link. I haven't had enough time myself to properly research. In any case, the historical precursors can be mentioned in this article. The article on INC also lists the historical origins and this one should as well. I see this as a viable article in the sense that it includes not only the present organisation but also information about the historical ones and about women's involvement in the INC in general.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please relist this if possible.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @DBigXray: Replying to your inquiry on presenting sources that verify the notability of the article, here are sources that can establish the notability of the subject:[27][28][29][30][31][32][33] None of these are promotional or trivial coverage. These are whole articles that clearly verify the notability of the subject of the article. I don't see why this article does not comply with notability guidelines. WikiAviator (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [7] (posted a second time) news event covering a minor protest event. No coverage of the org.
[3], [8] (posted a second time) covering the political statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.
[9] A one line mention of the event in [7]. No coverage of the org.
[2], [10] (posted a second time) a one line statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.
[4], [11] (posted a second time) a one line statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.
[5], [12] (posted a second time) news about a "planned" event covered in [7]. No coverage of the org.
[13] statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.
None of this sources are even covering the organisation and claiming that these sources are passing WP:ORGDEPTH shows a lack of understanding of our stringent policies to keep away political and commercial spam. Based on whatever was shared so far only reinforces my belief that this should be redirected to the parent org INC --DBigXrayᗙ 16:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: It seems I have to publicize this.
Dear readers, let me tell you what happened. This is his sudden feedback on my talk page:
Hi there. (1) Please confirm that you have read and understood Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH. (2) regarding the AfD source. Please do not repeat the links that you have already presented in your previous comments, doing so shows you in bad light, as it appears as though you are trying to pass 1 source as 2. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Foremost, I clearly understand WP:ORGDEPTH and I think that the sources pass the criteria. Moreover, I am too busy (in real life) to check which sources have been mentioned before. I am in no means trying to pass one source as two, I simply didn't check. If this has confused you, then i sincerely apologize. Also, please do not jump the gun right away and assume I am in bad light. This makes people feel offended and please learn how to assume good faith (WP:AGF). Thanks for your understanding:) WikiAviator (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiAviator, fine. I will respond at afd. I gave u the chance to correct. DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
First, I don't think my sources are unreliable or trivial coverage and it is pretty clear that most of them can verify the notability of the subject. And here's when things go funny, he said that I "am in bad light" for repeating the sources. But sorry it's your own problem. I am not trying to pass one source as two. I repeated them because I didn't care to check before posting and it seems that you have ignored the sources above, so I reposted them. Can't see the sources? No worries, I am happy to repeat for blind bats (I didn't say it's you, judge it yourself). Let's look at the sources one by one:
[1],[7] Look at the headline, what does it say: All India Mahila Congress stages 'Dharna' outside (...). It is talking about the political activities of the· organisation. Isn't it about the org itself? Of course activities count. If you need a detailed history about an org in order to list it on Wikipedia, then I'm sure even companies listed on S&P 500 will be deleted, and Wikipedia will shrink by 20%. Where on earth does ORGDEPTH mention that activities can't be counted as sources? What's your logic? Stop slurring things into a big lump and repeat the same invalid argument over and over again instead of going into the core of the problem.
[3],[8] In the article: "The Congress is on the verge of drawing blank again in the Assembly polls as all its candidates were way far behind their AAP and BJP opponents on all the 70 seats. In the 2015 Assembly elections too, Congress failed to win any seat." Are you sure this is not coverage of the org?
[9] In the article:"The All India Mahila Congress (AIMC) leaders also staged a protest against LPG price hike outside the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry office in Delhi on Thursday. The INC spokesperson Sushmita Dev and the Congress leader Alka Lamba led a rally with other members against the rise in prices of non-subsidised 14 kg Indane gas in metros which came into effect on Wednesday." Are you sure this is "one-line" and trivial? Can you read properly?
[2],[10] Are you only reading the headlines? Did you read the whole thing or are you just trying to make my sources sound bad? The argument or the leader, who is on behalf of the party's campaign, sparked nation-wide controversy, WP:ORGDEPTH:coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below), and WP:ORGDEPTH#Audience: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. As stated, this is not local coverage if we look at these guidelines.
[4],[11] For this one, sorry, this time I was in a rush. You're correct.
[5],[12] Thanks for helping me write my reply. Yes, it is exactly "news about a "planned" event covered in [7]". Planned events count as well. No one said this was forbidden.
[13] No one said that replies don't count. And this is not one-line coverage.
You see what's happening now, don't you? He's trying to defame my AfD reputation and trying to ban every source I list on every AfD discussion. Who are you "to give me a chance to correct"? I don't think I'm wrong. It is you who cannot analyse sources properly and then saying people are repeating?! This is absolutely bonkers. Please stop that. Thanks a lot. WikiAviator (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC), a native speaker of sarcasm. (I am friendly to most users, but if you're not, then sorry I'm not)[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 Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game. Redirect seems the obvious consensus, but whether to redirect to the company or the individual is a bit more problematic. I judge consensus to be to the company, but this could be further discussed and the redirect modified if necessary. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phage Press

[edit]
Phage Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a company is sourced to Wikipedia itself, the company's own website, a defunct page called "guardiansorder.com", and a marignally RS book. A BEFORE (JSTOR, Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com) finds no further RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BEFORE C.4, the nominator is to consider merging and redirection if an appropriate target exists. Per the cornerstone editing policy WP:PRESERVE, it is preferable to preserve than to delete sourced content. While it might be possible to bring this article to GNG standards using additional sources, the lasting encyclopedic interest is more likely to be in the major cultural product of the company, the highly influential Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game, than in the defunct company itself. Therefore the Nom should, per policy, have proposed this merger but neglected to do so. This will be the most appropriate close. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'd agree with redirecting, but the sources for Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game aren't impressive: dicelessbydesign.com, drivethrurpg.com, kickstarter.com, rpg.drivethrustuff.com, sjgames.com, therpgsite.com. Vexations (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Vexations, while I would be happy to add sources to the Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game article, it already has reviews in Pyramid (a Reliable Source magazine independent of Phage Press)[1][2] and in the independently published book Hobby Games: the 100 Best.[3] Therefore, there is no risk of the reliably sourced Phage Press information being lost in a Merge to Amber Diceless. Newimpartial (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, I think it would be best if you want to make sure that Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game is a good target for a Phage Press redirect, that you add all the reliable sources you can find. I'm not sure that t we have any reliably sourced Phage Press information: There are four sources: Appelcline, which I don't have acccess to (the nearest library with a copy is 400 miles away), but I notice it has been used in more than 20 other articles [0&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A"first%3D+Shannon|last%3D+Appelcline"&advancedSearch-current={}]. The others though, I'm not convinced: Wujcik, is published by the subject, "Guardians Of Order's New Year's Message" is a dead link and then Phage's own website. Vexations (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appelcline is also available online at various storefronts, but in any event, the RSN discussion showing its reliability is here. Pyramid (magazine) was a print magazine in the period of numbered issues 2 and 6 when these reviews appeared; it was published by Steve Jackson Games with a professional editorial staff (led by Derek Pearcey and Scott Marsh for the issues in question) and was entirely independent of Phage Press and Amber. Hobby Games: The 100 Best is also a clearly independent and reliable source, published by Green Ronin and authored by Nicole Lindroos, neither of whom were connected in any way to Amber. As documented in the article, Amber Diceless was also reviewed in Dragon, Challenge, White Wolf and Shadis, all of which are RS independent of Phage Press and Amber. NBOOK and the GNG are therefore clearly met (eight independent RS) for the proposed target article, Amber Diceless Roleplaying Game, without adding further sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But for a Merge !vote per PRESERVE, which I am making and which this thread is discussing, the number of RS for the article being merged is irrelevant to the decision to Merge, per policy. Even if the only sourced content on Phage Press consisted of SPS, which it does not, a Merge would still be the most appropriate close per BEFORE C.4 and PRESERVE, so long as a Notable and appropriate target is found for the Merge, The Notability of an Article's subject is only relevant at AfD to its standing as a separate article (keep vs. Delete), not to its being merged and discussed in another article. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, The (potential) sources for Phage Press matters, because we need to decide if there's any content that can be preserved by merging. Vexations (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, content must be sourced to be Merged, but the sources need not meet Notability standards, only the core Verifiability policy. For example , WP:ABOUTSELF (part of WP:V) specifies that sources published by an article's subject are considered reliable for information concerning the article's subject, subject to certain conditions (with none of these conditions applying here, AFAICT). Similarly, per WP:PRIMARY (another core policy), Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Yet neither sources published by an article's subject, nor sources covered by PRIMARY, count towards Notability for purposes of Keep or Delete !votes at AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Hobby Games: the 100 Best specifically, as I don't have access to the book, but generally from what I remember top-lists like "100 best whatever" aren't considered good sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Blankenship, Loyd (1993-08-01). "Pyramid Pick: Amber". Pyramid. #2. Retrieved 2008-02-15.
  2. ^ {cite journal|title=Shadow Knight (Preview) and Interview with Erick Wujcik |url=http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.html?id=640%7Caccessdate=2006-05-29%7Cjournal=Pyramid|volume=#6|last=Blankenship|first=Loyd}}
  3. ^ Lindroos, Nicole (2007). "Amber Diceless". In Lowder, James (ed.). Hobby Games: The 100 Best. Green Ronin Publishing. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-932442-96-0. OCLC 154694406.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daman and Diu Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Daman and Diu Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goa Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Goa Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Gujarat Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Haryana Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himachal Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Himachal Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jharkhand Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Jharkhand Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Karnataka Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Madhya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meghalaya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Meghalaya Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mizoram Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Mizoram Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Tamil Nadu Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiAviator, The same argument is equally true for the article All India Mahila Congress that you and User:Tayi Arajakate are suggesting as a redirect target for these. There is no doubt that these are all political spam. DBigXrayᗙ 15:00, 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 All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Telangana Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tripura Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Tripura Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarakhand Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Uttarakhand Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Uttar Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattisgarh Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Chhattisgarh Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Bihar Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzles Orchard, Arizona

[edit]
Grizzles Orchard, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-settlement in Cochise Co., AZ, it was actually... an orchard. Really. It is marked as such on older topos, and aerial views still show traces of crop rows. All the buildings here go with the orchard, and a basic search gives a ton of geoclickbait and nothing of substance. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Assam Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Maharashtra Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Andhra Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manipur Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Manipur Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaland Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Nagaland Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu & Kashmir Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Jammu & Kashmir Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Kerala Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Bengal Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
West Bengal Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:49, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puducherry Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Puducherry Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arunachal Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Arunachal Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. I am also ok if the folks decide to delete this, as there is basically no content to preserve here. IMHO this is blatant political SPAM and should never have been created or allowed to linger in the first place. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Punjab Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odisha Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Odisha Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dadra and Nagar Haveli Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Dadra and Nagar Haveli Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Sikkim Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshadweep Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Lakshadweep Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 21:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adept Press

[edit]
Adept Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article by an IP editor on a for-profit corporation is sourced to a single reference, which is purely incidental in nature. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to unearth any WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer) - PRESERVE does indeed apply to "content within an article", but to be preserved it has to go somewhere. The article on the founder would be the correct location for that content.

Also, there seem to be sour grapes in the nomination, since the terms "promotional" and "incidental" are used by the Nom even though neither term actually applies to this article. The nominator has also misapplied SIGCOV in the above comment, which is below the standard I expect from an Admin, even a relatively "green" one. Perhaps they could strive for more accurate presentation in future. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I can't see the paper sources coverage, but they are reliable (one I've researched before, the other at least looks quite reliable). The depth of coverage is less clear to me, but it sounds like at least one spans 4 pages. Seems likely to be enough. I'm unclear on how other are claiming the coverage isn't significant. Do those folks have access to these sources? If so, could one of you who say there isn't enough coverage explain what the coverage is (number of pages or paragraphs, topics covered) and explain your !vote a bit better? Thanks! @GoodCrossing: @BonkHindrance: @Chetsford: Hobit (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just read the "Designers & Dragons" reference (Adept is covered in the 00s book) and it certainly looked extremely promising. There is an entire chapter entitled "Adept Press: 2001-Present" which extends from page 131 to 151 - but in reality the book only discusses Edwards and various games in depth, there is no substantive coverage of the company. It is a case really of WP:NOTINHERITED - while Edwards and the games are probably notable, the company fails to meet the criteria. HighKing++ 17:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad someone read it and reported back. Quick question: what would you be looking for in the coverage of the company other the coverage of its products? It sounds like the author thinks they are covering the relevant contributions of the company. But until I can (re)find a copy, I can't add much more. Thanks again! Hobit (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies if this is overly long - I wish there was a shorter way to explain this - maybe someone else can do a better job. There are a lot of "companies" that people assume are notable because, perhaps, the founders are famous or they have a really well-known product. For example, record labels may publish music from very notable musicians but that doesn't mean that the company (record label) is itself notable. We refer to that as "Inherited" notability, the same way that a celebrity's child might be "famous" but only because of the association with the parent. Or perhaps a famous artist has an exhibition in a gallery - same "inheritance" and doesn't mean the gallery is notable. Those are fairly clear-cut (mostly). But what about, say, a well known tycoon (pick any tech billionaire for example) starts a new company and there is some coverage due to the fame of the tycoon. For these references we need to carefully look at each reference. Many will be churnalism where articles regurgitate the initial Press Releases from the company about their famous founder/investor/etc. We search for in-depth information on the *company*. We look for Independent Content which is defined at WP:ORGIND as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That sentence is very important. So articles that rely entirely on information provided/supplied/produced by someone associated with the company is not Independent Content.
        So back to your question. For me, all the "achievements" of the company (in the book) are attributed to one named person, Edwards. Practically every sentence refers to Edwards, not to the company. So for me, the notability is Edwards. Also, if the products are notable then the products should have an article - doesn't mean that the company is notable for publishing them (same as record label companies, book publishers, etc). HighKing++ 12:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually agree with HighKing's analysis here re: Notability. However, the resulting, policy-compliant outcome us then a Merge to the notable topic (Ron Edwards, the principal creative) and a Redirect to the company name, per PRESERVE and BEFORE C.4. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tend to be more conservative on BLPs and for someone who is only notable for a company, I'd rather they redirect to the company than the other way around. And folks often cite BIO1E as a reason for doing so. I'm willing to accept either way, but we clearly have coverage that meets WP:N on this person, and his company's, contributions to the field. We just need to get agrement on where to have the article and where to have the redirect. I'd say that's more of an RfC thing than an AfD thing, but we're here, so maybe this is the right place to finish that. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • My 2c based on what I've read about both the company and the person is that the company fails notability criteria but the person, Edwards, likely meets the criteria for notability, so therefore it makes more sense to keep Edward's topic. HighKing++ 15:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In looking for references, I came across several journal articles and books which mention or review products made by Adept Press (more than what is in the article currently), but I could find no coverage on the company itself. I have to concur with High King that notability is not inherited.4meter4 (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this !vote has not taken into account the Merge and Redirect argument per PRESERVE. It is therefore essentially an anti-Keep argument and does not present any policy-relevant considerations against a Merge/Redirect close. Newimpartial (talk) 13:58, 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 redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andaman & Nicobar Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Andaman & Nicobar Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress as it lacks significance but it is part of All India Mahila Congress. Article fails to comply with GNG and looks promotional. However, redirecting it would be better than deletion as people reading about the redirected page would still get the useful information of the organisation.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to All India Mahila Congress (there's a typo in the article, which is why it's a red link as All Indian Mahila Congress), adding a paragraph there to mention the existence of the state committees. This little stub is uninformative and unnecessary, and mostly made up of a list which ought to be a category or template. The same applies to all the state committees: can the AfDs be bundled together? PamD 09:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to All India Mahila Congress. (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee

[edit]
Mumbai Pradesh Mahila Congress Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:58, 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 speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT 3. (non-admin closure) ミラP 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Professionals Congress

[edit]
All India Professionals Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT Criteria 3: "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question.". This is technically on the basis that the nomination is WP:VAGUEWAVE, and per its history an examination of its history would have revealed a merge proposal that should have been considered in per WP:BEFORE criteria C4.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and improve: it already had citations with substantial coverage from national news sources when it was nominated for deletion, and I can see many more in GNEWS. The mission statement fluff needs a clear out, but it's definitely notable according to the criteria in the nomination. Capewearer (talk) 08:52, 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. Per procedural keep arguments. MBisanz talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiricahua, Arizona

[edit]
Chiricahua, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Next stop on the tour of Arizona non-places is this siding. Yes, that's all it is: a siding on a rail line which was abandoned sometime in the 1980s, if one believes the topos. GMaps actually has a good clue: the remains of a pond a bit to the east which it labels "Chiricahua Siding Tank", presumably to supply water back in the steam era. It's obvious there was never a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pseudo-settlements in Cochise County, Arizona which also represent former sidings on rail lines:

Calumet, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chamiso, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Campstone, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cazador, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fenner, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Forrest, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Manzoro, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olga, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stark, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vanar, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 03:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep Olga as this map (key) shows there were a number of dwellings located there.----Pontificalibus 20:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Olga. That is a nice looking map! I agree that Olga had what look to be dwellings. However, it seems that Olga is not a "Populated, legally recognized place" as per WP:GEOLAND #1 - there are no citations for a Post Office or form of local government. I'm seeing [Results_of_Spirit_Leveling_in_Arizona_18 references to Olga Siding], so WP:STATION would apply. WP:GEOLAND #2: "Populated places without legal recognition" says "any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" I don't think we have found the non-trivial coverage yet for Olga. Perhaps Olga should be deleted? BTW - there is a List of places in Arizona that looks to be a dump of GNIS. The Arizona list is far too long when compared with List of places in California. And while I'm at it, most of the Arizona pages use https://arizona.hometownlocator.com as a source. It looks to me like https://arizona.hometownlocator.com is an aggregator of GNIS and other public data and is not WP:RS. Perhaps https://arizona.hometownlocator.com should be removed as a reference on these articles? Comments anyone? Cxbrx (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is meant by ”legally recognized” is not clear. I’ve seen claims ranging from “must have its own government” through to “mustn’t be an illegal encampment”. However we tend to keep all named populated places that are more than simply isolated dwellings and not part of some other nearby settlement. This would suggest “legally recognized” means that the name should simply be used by government agencies etc. and has no bearing on the size of the settlement, with “populated place” meaning more than one household. So for example a farmstead named on an official map wouldn’t qualify, nor would a rail siding, but add in multiple houses to either and that is sufficient. As to the sourcing, yes these articles were created in batches relying only on GNIS, so this is part of going through them and deleting those lacking supporting evidence that they ever were populated places. ---Pontificalibus 06:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Manzoro as per WP:STATION. I'm not able to find a Post Office at Manzoro. For example, 1906 railroad reference has Manzoro in italics, indicating that there was no Post Office at that time. So, I don't think that Manzoro is a "Populated legally recognized place." Pontificalibus' citations and others indicate that Manzoro was a loading point for the mines, but I'm not sure if this is notable enough. If the mines or mining district are notable, then they should have their own pages. Cxbrx (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep Given the wide range of notabilities of these articles, a WP:MULTIAFD was inappropriate. Some of these are obviously notable, others obviously non-notable, many in between. There's too much here to analyze in one AfD. I will note, however, that having its own post office is absolutely not necessary to pass WP:NPLACE, though it is sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I commented on another discussion, having a post office is not sufficient evidence of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if we can reach a consensus about this, please comment in Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Is the presence of Post Office sufficient to fulfill legally recognized place?. Cxbrx (talk) 04:52, 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 redirect to Apache Powder Company. (non-admin closure) buidhe 03:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curtiss, Arizona

[edit]
Curtiss, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another GNIS-hallucinated "populated place", it's actually a "station" (in this case, a small yard just south of an industrial lead) outside St. David, Arizona which has plainly never been a settlement. As a rule we haven't considered these spots-on-the-railroad to be notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 03:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This is the location of the Apache Powder Company. I found several newspaper articles from the 1920s that refer to this company being located in Curtiss, Arizona. The rail stop there went by the same name. No indication that this was a populated place or human settlement. The company is definitely notable, so I just wrote a short article. Redirect to this company as there is no evidence of usage not associated with the company. MB 06:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Nice work MB. Reywas92Talk 08:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Analog Horror, (Communicate) 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Analog Horror[reply]

Robert V. Bartlett

[edit]
Robert V. Bartlett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG because it doesn't show how Robert V. Bartlett is notable. He just seems like an average school teacher who doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article. --Analog Horror, (Communicate) 03:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 03:52, 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 keep. Yunshui 雲水 09:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Armani

[edit]
Nora Armani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations beyond the personal web site of the individual the article references. On first glance the article appears to be a cited piece with links to dozens of other wiki topics but there are no citations or references to show notability other than a personal web site. The subject does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is nothing more than a PR page with nothing to back it up. Jimmydanglewood (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - They are both very promotional and don't support notability. I did a bit of digging and cant find much past these two which may be paid press releases. Its also odd that the original creator of the page deleted their account and quite a few look to have done very minor edits only linking other wiki pages. Possible sock puppets.Jimmydanglewood (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a poorly-written article and it's disappointing to see how many editors have boosted their edit count over the last 10 years by tweaking it variously, without making much improvement. I think I've now improved it, by adding a handful of references which appear to show notability (and fixing slanted apostrophes, avoiding "currently", removing inline external links...). Between them the sources I've added probably support much if not all of the text but I don't have the degree of interest to go through and add refs to support each statement. PamD 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references added are built to promote individuals and are not reliable. You can find services to post press pieces on the referenced sites on Fiverr and other gig sites for less than 20 dollars. Annemariecarney (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: There are quite a few articles out there, which I believe would qualify as significant coverage, but I don't feel that I am in the best position to evaluate Armenian sources. If someone can provide some guidance in this respect, I'll happily update my vote accordingly. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:53, 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Huck

[edit]
David Huck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There’s a lot of detail in this article but a search for sources does not show sustained coverage and this is possibly an attack page. Anyway the notability of the subject is doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tere Liye Bro

[edit]
Tere Liye Bro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article creator is determined to have this article in mainspace, in spite of the existence of a draft here and an attempt to redirect. I'm guessing a PROD would be removed. However, it's entirely unsourced, and no reliable sources are on Google. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk) (contribs) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 06:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt91486: apologies. I misread the title, confusing it with another similarly spelled title. Even still, only two reliable sources are not sufficient to establish notabilty. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per discussion above. WP:TVSERIES states Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a topic should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a topic should be included. Only because this TV series was nationally braodcast, doesnt make it automatically notable. Coverage in one reliable source is not significant coverage. We also have to consider current persistent attempts of production companies from India to create wikipedia articles of their TV shows, and actors; during the publicity/marketing campaigns. As per WP:COMMONSENSE, PR, paid news/reviews, WP:ROUTINE coverage is bound to take place. At least 2-3 reviews (not capsule reviews), and/or significant coverage is required for establishing notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morwalela Seema

[edit]
Morwalela Seema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY Sulfurboy (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Playing in an international friendly is sufficient for WP:NFOOTBALL. The source also confirms he played in many further international matches - not withstanding the GNG significant coverage he meets from that source. GiantSnowman 22:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, I guess I'm confused or maybe reading it wrong. Can you point me to where in the WP:FOOTY policy it states that non-notable international friendlies would qualify someone? You may have something going with WP:GNG, but I'm not seeing any other articles that cover the subject (at least not in a non-WP:ROUNTINE manner) and the one linked seems to be very much a fluff piece and relies heavily on statements by the subject making it borderline primary in my opinion. I'd love to save this article, but I'm simply not seeing anything. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I promise I'm not trying to be confrontational here or anything, I just want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting something WP:NFOOTY, because as I understood it that the international matches have to be competitive meaning friendlies wouldn't be applicable. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As GiantSnowman said, he does in fact pass WP:NFOOTY as friendlies are (generally) considered Tier 1 International Matches by FIFA. Smartyllama (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Smartyllama, What then is the purpose of distinguishing "competitive" international matches in the policy if all international matches count? Was there a previous discussion or clarification of the policy? Again, as I said above, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to find out where this is clearly outlined. The other issue would be is I'm not seeing any official record of these games other than primary mentions in the article. We have no way of confirming (so far) that these were sanctioned by FIFA or if these players were even officially representing their countries. If everyone wants to say any international friendly is enough to pass NFOOTY, fine. But there needs to be some sort of non-primary source to support it. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Competing in a "competitive international match" is a separate way one can earn notability, aside from competing in a Tier I international match. The guideline is quite clear about that. This means that someone who competes in a CONCACAF Gold Cup match between Martinique and Haiti passes NFOOTY even though Martinique is not a FIFA member and as such it is not a Tier I International Match. However, someone who only competed in a friendly between Martinique and Haiti would NOT pass NFOOTY, as that is not a Tier I International Match, nor is it a competitive international match. As Botswana and Swaziland are both FIFA members, a friendly between them is considered a Tier I International Match under FIFA rules. I don't know how the guideline can be any clearer that all Tier I International Matches count, or why discussion would be required to make sure it says what it clearly says. Smartyllama (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Smartyllama, Thanks for clearing that up. That still leaves the issue about a lack of a non-primary source confirming this match in fact happened, that it was sanctioned, and was actually endorsed by the player's mother countries. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sunday Standard seems to be a major newspaper. I have no concerns about its reliability. There are not going to be many online sources for a match that long ago. This is fine. Smartyllama (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems pretty likely to meet GNG given that the one source in the article discusses them in significant detail, and regards him so highly decades later. But how does a match against Swaziland meet NFOOTY? ELO rankings do incorporate non-FIFA matches - such as Martinique - but says the first match against Swaziland was not until 1986, after this player apparently retired! Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's one excellent GNG source in the article. The players hasn't played in about 35 years, and I can't even find online Botswanan sources anywhere close to that old. There's be huge BIAS if we eliminated such articles. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Mitchell (comedian)

[edit]
Norman Mitchell (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG as well as WP:ARTIST Less Unless (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, comediants are within WP:ENTERTAINER, which he also fails. Less Unless (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:51, 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yani Mo

[edit]
Yani Mo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as well as WP:SINGER Less Unless (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:51, 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Academic Centers

[edit]
Nicholas Academic Centers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Seventh Posture

[edit]
Seventh Posture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Related to 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, buidhe 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 delete. MBisanz talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Bande Ali Husaini

[edit]
Syed Bande Ali Husaini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if he could be verified, he was run of the mill - a judge in one smallish city. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:47, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian eagle (disambiguation)

[edit]
Silesian eagle (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary dab page, we can add a hatnote to the Coat of arms article if determined necessary. Hog Farm (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But then we will continue confusing the award (less important) and the symbol (which gave the name to the award), i do think it is nice to have a disambig page. --Andrei (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ONEOTHER - The award would be the primary topic, since the name is the exact phrasing. You could then put a hatnote at the top to point from the award to the symbol. Like
For the coat of arms featuring the eagle, see Coat of arms of Silesia.
. Hog Farm (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:47, 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ELINEPA

[edit]
ELINEPA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cites no refs, I couldn't unearth much more with a preliminary WP:BEFORE. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In Greek only some listings, and self-references exist. The article is ovbiously a promo, since its creator user Vassiliades appears to be the president of this society (cf. this, "Πρόεδρος Δρ. Δημήτριος Θ. Βασιλειάδης" = "President Dr. Dimitrios Vassiliades"). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 15:14, 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaaruku Yaaro

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Yaaruku Yaaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film is under sourced and not notable. This page was created for a film that has highly negative reviews and has been mocked by other films. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A bad review is still a review and contributes towards establishing notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I agree with Eastmain. I havent performed the search yest, but the "critical reception" section in article is unsourced. There some interesting arguments in previous AfD, but they were not based on policies. I am totally in for bypassing the bureaucracy on the basis of WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, as long as it can be proven what was claimed in previous AfD (December 2009). The film doesnt pass the WP:NFILM. As I didnt perform a search yet, I dont know if the film passes WP:GNG. In case it doesnt, it can be selectively merged with lead actor Sam Anderson (Tamil actor)'s article, who currently has a stub-class article. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Yunshui 雲水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jehanzeb Aziz

[edit]
Jehanzeb Aziz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:45, 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. – sgeureka t•c 08:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Father (The Avengers)

[edit]
Father (The Avengers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't seem to find any in-depth discussion or analysis of this character, the article is pure WP:PLOT and in the linked sources (those that I can access) nor in my general BEFORE, as I said, I am not seeing anything useful, through the search here is made pretty difficult due to the character's super generic name. Can anyone find any sources that discuss this character in depth and beyond pure plot summary? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer). (non-admin closure) buidhe 02:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It Was a Mutual Decision

[edit]
It Was a Mutual Decision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a commercial product has had zero (0) references for the preceding six years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and Redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer) per WP's core content policy, PRESERVE. And the article concerns a BOOK, not a "commercial product", for those keeping score at home. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In principal I don't have an issue with Redirect (I'd oppose Merge out of concern the content here would be UNDUE for a bio of this length, plus I'm going to nominate the BLP for deletion anyway shortly), my only trepidation is that the term is so common that it is unlikely to be the most sought subject for this search. But, ultimately, I don't think Redirect would be the worst decision. Chetsford (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ron Edwards (game designer)#RPGs and supplements. There were some sources found, but it's questionable whether most of them are WP:RS. The redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground, complies with WP:ATD, and preserves the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S/lay w/Me

[edit]
S/lay w/Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a commercial product has had zero (0) references for the preceding six years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Polish website is a professional on-line portal with reviews of various media, and is hard to characterize, since it uses reviews from both paid editorial staff and users. The review chosen for this article is by a staff editor. The two French magazines are exactly that, printed (hardcopy dead tree) magazines. Again, not blogs.Guinness323 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The review chosen for this article is by a staff editor. That's not how it appears to me. The two French magazines are exactly that, printed (hardcopy dead tree) magazines. The fact that something appears on paper does not make it WP:RS. In any case, Le Maradeur is an ezine. I am unable to identify any method or manner of subscribing or buying an issue and it has no ISSN. Chetsford (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big deal, it happens. In a lot of RPG AfDs we find people furiously google the name of the game or game company and then slap up the first things they can find, often having never heard of the blogs before, and then construct an argument as to why it's RS post facto. This is a frequent result of this approach to WP:N analysis, so no worries. Chetsford (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 02:41, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Bobo

[edit]
Jacqueline Bobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPROF Sulfurboy (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask that you state what wikipedia policies you think are applicable to denote notability. The things you stated don't really make someone inherently notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 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. Yunshui 雲水 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turing Research

[edit]
Turing Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

as per my prod: this is nothing more than original research, TR isn't an institute, it's a research group and all the sources that even make mention of it are just bylines by the authors, which are self published by the page creator. The rest of the sources make no mention of "turing Research" Praxidicae (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • All research institutes have to perform original research, among other activities. Turing research has a well-known name in AI and the Washington, DC area (i.e. at the US government).
  • Based on the "list of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates", the Turing Research page adheres to the following policy/guideline name:

Academics WP:ACADEMIC WP:PROFESSOR Wikipedia:Notability (academics) "Notability requirements for people based on academic achievements" fbatarse

Akumar19 It would be helpful if you would read the sources you're citing are reliable and give an indication of notability. The first one you cite explicitly says: This blog post expresses the views of its author(s), not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. and it was clearly by someone with a name remarkably similar to your username. Linkedin is irrelevant, as is the rest. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications". So the publications by this group are a valid representation of their research activity and national recognition fbatarse
Please learn how to properly edit AFDs as you're messing up all the responses here including refactoring many of them. Also you can quote that as much as you want fbatarse but it's meaningless without actual sources to back it up. Please go read WP:COI while you're at it. Praxidicae (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
please sign your comment appropriately — Preceding unsigned comment added by fbatarse (talk • contribs)
My comment is signed appropriately. Yours, interesting, is not. Waggie (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting choice of what to call out. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 21:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all the reasons for deletion are appropriately addressed. This discussion needs to be based on Wikipedia rules, and that is our reference, not personal opinions.

fbatarse (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read said "rules", fbatarse Including those about your undisclosed WP:COI. Praxidicae (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
o, they aren't. None of your sources work towards satisfying WP:Notability or WP:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:Notability (academics) does not apply to research groups), as they're self-published papers coauthored by the group's members or short blurbs written by and about same. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 21:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the references are published by many authors, and they are not self-published. fbatarse (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to reread what you just wrote. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 21:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not easy for a research group at a university to qualify as wiki-notable, and there is no indication that this is an exception. The WP:PROF notability guideline invoked above is inapplicable, because it's for people, not groups. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's possible that this subject could meet our notability guidelines. However, to do so we would need to see a list of their notable accomplishments, viz. has Turning Research produced any results that have been written up in the mainstream media, & clearly are not PR releases? Until that can be provided, any article on TR is doomed to return to WP:Articles for Deletion & be removed from Wikipedia. (A more successful solution might be to add something to the Research section of George Mason University; that article lacks any mention of this unit.) Until those notable successes are provided, all I see that could be written is that TR "specializes in artificial intelligence and data science applications helping to make public policy decisions" -- hardly the basis for a useful article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 09:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altur Santos

[edit]
Altur Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Provided sources are softball interviews and/or less-than-reliable blog posts. Searching for sources online, I found nothing, even when searching for Dominican newspapers and Latin American pop culture publications. N.b. that according to the article, Santos has released one single, with no mention of other recordings or performances. The article has also been primarily edited by editors that appear to have COIs. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 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.
  1. ^ https://cinema.vikatan.com/tamil-cinema/123854-sam-anderson-in-appo-ippo-series-8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_February_20&oldid=943580389"