Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 31 January 2 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 redirect to List of terms relating to algorithms and data structures per CHEAP and ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures

[edit]
Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures (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 notability guidelines, Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa Paulson

[edit]
Ilsa Paulson (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 fail to see how anyone would meet WP:NATHLETE for local marathons and no actual coverage. Unlike WP:NFOOTY and the like, notability isn't given for participation in runs and the claim of a national title appears to be false. Praxidicae (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the article needs some serious cleanup, there seems to be enough coverage: Runner's World and Podiumrunning articles confirm the national title ([1], [2]), another covers her move into competitive running ([3]). She has further coverage in local news ([4], [5], [6], [7]). Enough to pass WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the efforts of Achaea have turned up non-trivial coverage. I also think winning any marathon should be a claim to WP:ANYBIO. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject won the Twin Cities Marathon, which is not just some two bit local race. Its fairly prestigious, and according to our page is one of the most competitive marathons in the US. That to me seems to indicate passing WP:NATH. Combined with Acheae's above coverage, this individual easily meets our standards. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have cleaned up the article. There is sufficient coverage to meet general notability and her performances also meet sports notability, given she is an American national champion. The New York City Marathon is the top level of the sport, not a local event. SFB 12:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I agree cleanup is required.8Lizardtalk to me!!! 12:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep U.S. champion and non-trivial coverage as Achaea found. Jozape (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are people arguing under the GNG or under WP:NATH? I don't quite follow the above arguments. If under the GNG, there doesn't appear to be SIGCOV. If under WP:NATH, nobody that's !voted appears to have read the guideline. As far as I can tell, she doesn't meet any of the 10 criteria; particularly: she hasn't finished top-8 "in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships" (e.g. the guideline specifically lists the 6 World Major Marathons as instances of this requirement) nor has she competed in the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships (again listed in the guideline). The USA Marathon Championships are not on the aforementioned, while her other non-top-8 results are not in any of the previously mentioned categories (nor are they top-8!). Yes, they're all amazing feats, but they don't make her inherently notable per the guideline cited, and when it comes to coverage that would support inclusion per general notability, there is nothing substantial either, unless someone can provide several quality sources. Can anyone please elucidate which notability criteria she satisfies, and how? Best, PK650 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Have won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those that have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year. Though she was never in the top 60, so she doesn't meet that criteria. However, she has sufficient coverage from non-local sources: [8], [9], and [10]. Jozape (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imale

[edit]
Imale (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 do not see how a settlement is notable. It has one sentence, and cites no sources. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I now agree with Puddleglum2.0 in that we should draftify and notify the author. Cheers. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep agree with what SportingFlyer said. See for example, Ežeriekai, one source, very few people live there, yet we have an article about it. I don't agree with draftifying. It looks complete. And if you say oh we will have a lot of articles and the Wikipedia server will be slow etc etc, you should not worry about this.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this was in the UK or USA then it wouldn't be here. Draftify? What! That's just back door deletion. I'm don't think I'm going to travel through this place or live there next week but someone is and they are going to wonder why abandoned villages in the UK?US are on Wikipedia but this place isn't. Thanks to user:Pontificalibus and user:MIDI who have worked on this for ten years and the editors above who are ensuring it doesn't get deleted.Victuallers (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I am dubious about the location on maps and the fact this doesn’t tally with mentions in documents, the census is sufficient to satisfy WP:V that there is or was a settlement of this name in Kitui County with a sizeable population.---Pontificalibus 16:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cream Can Junction, Idaho

[edit]
Cream Can Junction, Idaho (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)

Road junction, with no evidence of settlement (I already corrected it from "community" to USGS's locale). I found the mention at [11] as a road junction, deprodder found [12] but it seems to be someone just noting a funny name seen on a map and its incorrect GNIS class, no evidence it is or was a community – this is hardly "bound in spirit". Reywas92Talk 21:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 21:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 21:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urn (band)

[edit]
Urn (band) (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)

Not notable, all releases are on self-labels, no significant coverage in reliable sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. No indication of importance or notability. Mattg82 (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I think I've actually seen this band live during my goth days in the MIdwest. However, they fail notability. Missvain (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Can find nothing but typical retail/streaming entries and self-created social media. Note that the band and their albums are listed at AllMusic but the entries are empty. Overwhelmingly unnoticed by the media and public. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - Apologies for the lack of updates, but edits have been recently made and more content will be coming forth that will/should establish the band's notability. In [WP:Band]'s Criteria for musicians and ensembles, Criteria Number 6 "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" -Dominic St. Charles and Eric Peterson are former member of The Electric Hellfire Club which should qualify them. Cleve Hall of SyFy Channel's Monster Man has been the keyboardist since 2017 would should also qualify. Mr. Hall will have new show coming out SyFy Channel in 2020 which will feature music from the group in an episode as well as the credits. Which also leads to Criteria Number Ten: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show...". Urn has had music already appear on A&E's Paranormal State and was used in the documentary "Biography of Vampires". We are also in talks with a record company owned by Dave Ellefson of the notable metal band Megadeth for a 2020 release. I do seek help, guidance, and assistance in terms of properly uploading all of this content as I do not consider myself an "editor". Thank you for your time and consideration and humbly request to not delete this page. Tyreal13 (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)tyreal13[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Tyreal13: If you can provide some sources for any of the claims you mention above, I'll gladly help add them to the article. However, at a quick glance, I'm not sure The Electric Hellfire Club's article establishes their notability, either, and the wording of the TV appearance rules specify that the song is the theme or the band actually performs on the show. I did find a review of an Urn album [15], but I'm not familiar enough with the site to know if this is a user-submitted review or not the site uses the wording "latest reviews uploaded to our magazine" which leads me to believe these are user-submitted. An additional review is here [16] and does appear to be from a reliable source. I hope someone can give some insight to the reliability of the reviews on Metal Temple, as those two could establish notability if both pass. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you so kindly, deeply appreciated on many levels. The band uses a national publicist in TAG Publicity who landed the band many placements in the trade and national media. I am working to collect all of these articles with them, but one I do have at this moment is <ref> DeMarino, Nick, "Feature Interview - Urn", Outburn, Issue 52, March 2010 <ref> 71.47.254.210 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Tyreal13[reply]
  • Unfortunately, interviews aren't generally viewed as contributing toward notability. Do you have any independently-published album reviews? Link 2 in my previous comment is an example of what I mean. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Detroit

[edit]
BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Detroit (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)

Subject is a Hindu temple in Detroit. Sources provided are no independent or reliable. No independent, reliable could be found on web to support WP:N requirements. Fails WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why? 2A02:810D:81C0:2038:80BC:B1EC:1FD2:7F5F (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smallant1

[edit]
Smallant1 (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)

Please nominate Smallant1 for deletion, Thank you. No reliable sources has been presented and it fails Notability for youtuber. 58.121.22.165 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Three intellectually separate secondary sources have been sourced (Medium, Polygon, LPB Community Corner), fulfilling WP:NBIO Basic Criteria, as I understand it. As per WP:ENT Has made 'unique contributions' in the SMO community (see Medium article[1]) and has a sizable following. Subscriber count may be lower than other notable YouTubers, but Smallant1 the is the #1 BOTW and SMO streamer on Twitch. Lycelsara (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Zach Benson (13 November 2019). "The Art of Speed Running (feat. Smallant1 & Keizaron)". Medium. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
  • Delete. There isn't enough coverage in the sources already in the article to establish notability, and I was unable to find more when I searched myself. Of the sources mentioned by Lycelsara, Medium is self published and unreliable, the LBP source is an interview on an extremely niche website which does little to nothing to contribute to notability, and the Polygon article is not particularly significant in its coverage. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only three sources have been cited to establish notability. One of which is the "LPB Community Corner" which I do not consider reliable. But even assuming it is it would not matter since WP:GNG states: "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Interviews are not independent of the subject leaving only two sources to be considered. The Medium article is a brief paragraph about the subject with the rest of the section being an interview of him (which is not independent of the subject). But even then, Medium is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. This leaves the Polygon article, which is reliable, but only has a brief mention of the subject and one of his videos. Hence fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO Basic Criteria.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Game Room games

[edit]
List of Game Room games (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)

Similar to other 'List of [x games] on [x platform]', another WP:CATALOG of a huge list of video games for the Game Room virtual arcade. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though should be merged to Game Room, that article is short enough to support the list). Unlike the other lists that are mentioned above, this is not the same type of catalog: this is effectively the list of downloadable content for Game Room. Outside of product availability/discontinuation, it isn't the case of these games being temporarily free - the packs remain(ed?) available to download through the life of the 360 and product. It is equivalent to, say, List of PlayStation Now games, List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America) and the more general List of Xbox 360 games. To stress, the other lists that were deleted were just listing games that were offered for free for a limited time, which is what made those lists more catalog-like than just a listing. --Masem (t) 15:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Masem:, thanks for your input. I don't see a huge difference there. Maybe it's not very similar to PlayStation Plus and similar listings, but what about List of OnLive games? Game Room itself is no longer available and this is a list of games that were available for purchase for that particular digital distribution channel. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fully aware the differences are extremely subtle. A core one are that the lists I had put to AFD and since were deleted were based on "games free/discounted for a limited time". That's effectively documenting a sale period. Unless that sale had significant downstream effects (And in the ur example of this, Rocket League had temporarily been offered free on the PlayStation at its launch which is reported to have significantly helped the title's popularity and growth, so that sale promotion is documented in the article), we should not include such sales or discounts per NOTCATALOG. To this Game Room list, nothing about sales or promotions are given outside of noting one had to buy some of these , others may have offered free at all times (not a sale/promotion period). These were simply the list of older arcade games that had been made available to this title. One can consider this a game platform, and we generally do document all games available for such platforms. yeeees, this could be considered a catalog to a degree, but again, a key point of the NOTCATALOG argument is that these lists are neutral of any pricing or promotion aspects, simply documenting what one could potentially get. (In this vein, the deleted lists were thus subsets of "List of games for (platform)"). But again, its subtle and a similar question or two were raised in the prior AFDs. --Masem (t) 17:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And also to add, I know we also have some "List of free-to-play" games. While we're talking a $0 price point on these games, these games were always (or retroactively made) to be offered free (which is a notable facet in the vg industry, the whole freemium game model), not as part of a promotional or sale. So that's another difference to consider. --Masem (t) 17:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Masem has demonstrated, this is not a catalogue, as it does not contain pricing or promotional information (i.e. limited-time sales etc.). It is, rather, a list of games for a particular platform, similar to many others on Wikipedia. Phediuk (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Phediuk:, thanks for your input. I'm not assuming I can change your mind in the matter, but Game Room is not a platform, it was a digital distribution channel (why I brought up the redirected List of OnLive games before), or can be even considered an emulator. Maybe WP:CATALOG isn't the right one, but I think WP:NOTDIRECTORY is also accurate. The list is completely unsourced currently to boot, but I won't a jerk to remove the list on the WP:BURDEN principle just to make a WP:POINT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Game Room *was* an emulator, effectively something like MAME wrapped into a Xbox 360. Players could purchase the game packs which is the equivalent of downloading officially-licensed ROMs of the arcade games.
As for being a distribution channel, that's not true: the game packs were downloadable content for the free Game Room application, and though purchases were made through the Xbox Live store (as with all Xbox 360 titles and DLC).
The NOTDIRECTORY is the one point where this can become naunced. A list of games on a video game platform is apparently okay, but a list of games on a video game storefront is not - a distinction I agree with, considering the Onlive list. There can be 100% overlaps between these, in that for the Game Room games, one can take Game Room to be a "platform" (a ROM emulation engine for several past arcade games) but by necessity, listing them all is listing all the content you can get on the storefront for the game. But this latter aspect is common for nearly any game that has DLC or the like. But that brings up yet another factor to consider which is the sourcing issue. I have not done anything exhaustive yet , but in general, we do consider it fair to list out all DLC available for a game if there has generally been decent coverage of that DLC during the game's run. We have, for example, omitted lists of car packs one can download for some racing games because there's no real major coverage of those in sources, whereas we have lists of songs that could be dl'd for Guitar Hero and Rock Band as when those games were in their heyday, sourcing for the DLC was readily covered. As for Game Room, this is unfortunately the period where Google's news coverage starts to be weak (2010-2011). The idea of Game Room is definitely notable, but whether the coverage of each game pack (this list) is not as assured at least going by RSes. The games that had launched with Game Room are easy to confirm, but not some of the latter packs. (There are lesser RSes that I can use, but I'm considering the better RSes from this project) This might be the line needed - whether there is reasonable coverage of the DLC - to consider keeping the list. Of course, that said, if this list is kept, I'll likely be the first to merge it back into Game Room and source what can be sourced. --Masem (t) 15:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Eyes, Small Mouth. This is w/o prejudice to merging any material provided it is adequately sourced and meets our other relevant guidelines. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centauri Knights

[edit]
Centauri Knights (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)

For the preceding 15 years, article has been sourced to one page in one book. A BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) fails to find additional sources. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and Redirect) to Big Eyes, Small Mouth - the individual published setting is of decidedly less interest than the overall Big Eyes, Small Mouth game system for which it was originally published. Per WP:BEFORE C.4, the nominator should have considered a Merge, per WP:PRESERVE this is the policy-compliant course, and per WP:ENC the notable game system, for which the setting was designed, is the most appropriate merge target. The Nom should, per policy, consider withdrawing this nomination so we can get the merge done efficiently and not clutter AfD. AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Big Eyes, Small Mouth. The sourcing on even that article seems rather iffy, but as long as its still there, redirecting this supplement there would make sense. This supplement is already listed there, and there isn't really much in the way of sourced content that needs to be merged, but if there is anything people feel should be transferred over, the history will be there to allow for any merging. Rorshacma (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silverstone (plastic)

[edit]
Silverstone (plastic) (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 sign of notability Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schenectady Civic Center

[edit]
Schenectady Civic Center (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 stub for more than 13 years. Search returns very little. Fails WP:GNG. Tried PROD, but it was deprodded because a minor league hockey team played there for a single year back in the 80s. WP:NOTINHERITED, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm having almost no evidence for this. There is a reference in a IEEE section history about a civic center which was not built, but outside the one hockey game reference, I see nothing. The coordinates (which I've removed) were for a different space used by a stage troupe. The article on the Schenectady Chiefs contradicts this one, and says that there was nothing more than a very temporary facility in the atrium of an office building. The only reference for that article does make the "civic center" claim but doesn't locate it, so I have to think this is an error of some sort. At any rate there really isn't enough evidence for the existence of this place. Mangoe (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suspect that the claims that the Schenectady Chiefs hockey team played at the Schenectady Civic Center are incorrect. I found articles in the Schenectady Gazette from the time when the team was actually playing that referred to the team's arena as "Center City", which is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the team. See [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. See also [22]. An ad for a preseason game refers to the team as playing at "Center City Civic Center" (see [23] and scroll down). The whole premise of this article may be a mistake. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. I can verify it exists, as can many reliable sources (although more Schenectady Gazette articles are behind a paywall). This article was no doubt created in good faith. I used to work up the street from it, which has (had?) an ice skating rink, a dining area (at one time a chain fast food restaurant), and amateur or semi-pro hockey games. I attended a gay hockey match there once. It's really quite small - I don't think they could fit more than 1,000 people comfortably. I recall that Union Dutchmen ice hockey sometimes used it as a practice rink when Achilles Rink was being built or repaired. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Tolstaya

[edit]
Ekaterina Tolstaya (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)

Notability is not inherited. Being Tolstoy's granddaughter doesn't automatically make her notable. Article completely unsourced. Furthermore, a googling turned up literally nothing about her. She seems to fail WP:NBIO. The article is also tagged as a hoax, I make no judgement as to whether it is, but the possibility exists. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is a true hoax, as some searching on Discord a few days ago found this Find a Grave and this article from 2001. Ionmars10 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it demonstrated notability, it's just a piece of evidence indicating that Ekaterina Tolstaya at the very least existed, since the nominator suggested that the article might have been an outright hoax. Ionmars10 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women's T20 Quadrangular Series (in India) 2020

[edit]
Women's T20 Quadrangular Series (in India) 2020 (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. Non notable cricket tournament featuring A and B teams. The title is also not relevant to the standards. The tournament is not classified as WT20 International. Abishe (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW keep. Consensus is unanimous here; this was a wholly incorrect deletion nomination, possibly, I dare say, in bad-faith. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horizons Gorwelion

[edit]
Horizons Gorwelion (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 music festival, and given the editor's COI history the page was probably created for Welsh Monolpoly Money GDX420 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. 'Nuff said. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 01:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Wildlife Centre

[edit]
Welsh Wildlife Centre (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 organisation. The only news about the centre is about an arson attack, but the articles aren't about the centre itself GDX420 (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hi User:GDX420 I would appreciate it if you would cease targeting a number of articles I have created and falsely claiming I am a paid editor. I am raising your repeated targeting of articles I have written at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GDX420. Your proposal does not meet WP:DP - the article is clearly in need of more detail, but it is sufficiently referenced, impartial, clear, and accurate to remain on Wikipedia. Thanks. Llemiles (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are a paid editor! I have off-wiki evidence!!!GDX420 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have off-wiki evidence which clearly demonstates that GDX420 is a paid editor!!!GDX420 (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep Some sources on Google, I am leaning into the keep side, but not completely Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha

[edit]
Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (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)

A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created updated overtime with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. DBigXrayᗙ 09:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 09:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 09:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dee03 I have struck creator as the recent updates are to be blamed for the PROMO. Can you also include the refs you are considering as WP:SIGCOV? To be precise WP:BRANCH seems applicable here more than WP:CLUB, since BJYM is a sub-organization of BJP. DBigXrayᗙ 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it is clear that it is a WP:BRANCH there is no evidence that it is autonomous. And even if we assume autonomous, that itself still does not merit a separate page. unsubstantiated claims of numbers made by office bearers don't really help.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some problems I have is time and also the number of free reads I am allowed per month on some publications where are exhausted. The significant coverage is sufficent. The describing of the Daily Excelsiors's work "BJP Yuva Morcha delegation calls on Lt Governor" as shit above is WP:UNCIVIL to a party outside Wikipedia.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be noted the only reason I was attracted to this AfD at all was this [103] which appears to be WP:CANVAS, seeking to influence the outcome of a discussion, although the respondent had messages in the discussion which were not answered and obviously the edit not hidden.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am not receiving warnings on my talk page so will not be commenting further on this WP:AFD so I am silenced.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the "silly and ridiculous accusations" of canvassing via standard WP:talkback template. See the first comment on this AfD and check the timestamps (diff), see the reasonable follow up question (diff) see the WP:talkback (diff) and see the response (diff). Comprende much ? Since you have no sources to back up your claims, you can only fill up the AfD with off topic noise. DBigXrayᗙ 10:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete/Merge/redirect: Topic seems to have inherent notability in the same way youth wings for other parties have their own notability, however, this particular topic seems very weak in references and currently many of the lines are very general and seeming to push inherited notability. If not a complete merge, a line or two can be picked up and put in the party article. (Or if there is a list article or something for BJP related articles) Otherwise, weak delete. DTM (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DiplomatTesterMan, thanks for the participation. There is no concept of inherent notability on Wikipedia per WP:NOTINHERITED. The BJP article already mentions that this is its youth wing. Other than that there is nothing to merge really. DBigXrayᗙ 13:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Draftify: On seeing the article and topic a bit more, I guess it can stay, BUT needs working on. Move to DRAFTSPACE until someone sorts it out. DTM (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiplomatTesterMan, before moving to draft it needs to be demonstrated that WP:ORGCRIT is passed. If it does not pass now, there is no reason it will pass in next 6 months when the draft will get deleted as expired. DBigXrayᗙ 14:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Rot am See shooting

[edit]
2020 Rot am See shooting (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)

WP:EVENT - this is a terrible but not notable case of domestic violence LaserLegs (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. LaserLegs (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus looks pretty solid here. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borrtex

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Borrtex (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 composer. despite the ample amount of sources in this article, most are not independent, completely unreliable or outright fake, making the article largely fabricated. Also as a note, not only has this been deleted via AFD previously, it's also been deleted by other means under the name Daniel Bordovský. See source review:

Source review (nominator)
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://borrtex.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BorrtexInDenikCZ.pdf ? Unknown
https://sleepysongs.se/behind-the-piano/behind-the-piano-borrtex/ No interview No just a blog, no evidence it has any weight or reliability. No ✘ No
https://www.ostravan.cz/60907/daniel-bordovsky-alias-borrtex-cesko-je-krasne-misto-pro-zivot-meli-bychom-si-toho-vice-vazit/ No interview No per the notice at hte bottom, they're contributor pieces and anyone can edit No ✘ No
https://thefrisky.com/inspiring-story-about-young-musician-borrtex/ No interview No not really sure an interview in the frisky which has a contact me of someones personal gmail is reliable No ✘ No
https://www.radio.cz/en/section/one-on-one/martin-pomothy-founder-of-countrys-largest-film-website No interview ~ for primary information No ✘ No
https://www.focus-age.cz/m-journal/aktuality/tym-csfd-natocil-svuj-prvni-serial--a-to-rovnou-v-hollywoodu__s288x13299.html No no mention of the subject ? No ✘ No
https://www.csfd.cz/film/555022-prohlidka-filmovych-studii-warner-bros-studios/prehled/ No basically a cz imdb No No ✘ No
http://www.music-news.com/news/Underground/119167/Ambitious-young-composer-Borrtex-pioneers-distinctive-new-cinematic-style No it's clearly a PR piece ~ for primary info No ✘ No
https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Borrtex No just a standard listing No No ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7aQIBFpb38 No No No just a brief appearance in a short ✘ No
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/maintenance-backlog.htm No it's a video of his song in a short commercial by NPS not applicable No ✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2863398170656175 No see above No ✘ No
https://www.soundtrackmusic.eu/2019/07/05/borrtexs-piano-solo-album-coalescence-is-out-now/ No just..no No this is another fake publication - see the about us/authors page, 2/3 of those people are not the same as the names being claimed there and I highly doubt anyone with such editorial control and standards would have such an insane amount of grammar and spelling errors. No ✘ No
http://routenote.com/blog/how-this-artist-went-from-thousands-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-streams-in-one-month/ No nope No see https://www.routenote.com/services/artist/ No ✘ No
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2019/02/11/dear-america-a-letter-from-generation-z-on-gun-violence/ No Yes it's reliable but has nothing to do with the subject No a local news outlet talking about a local high schools film production is far from significant coverage ✘ No
https://theemmys.tv/nspa-2019-winners-announced/ No not about the subject Yes but not about the subject No not about the subject, makes no mention of him or his song, so at best its a coatrack ✘ No
https://www.today.com/parents/teen-s-film-gun-violence-gen-z-wins-student-emmy-t166526 No but irrelevant to the subject as theres no mention Yes reliable but irrelevant to the subject No not about the subject ✘ No
https://www.popsugar.co.uk/news/student-gun-violence-impact-video-46861178 No see above Yes No ✘ No
https://www.sweetstartups.com/the-arts/borrtex-the-artist-entrepreneurs-love/ No No this is laughably bad, yet another fake news site chock full of errors No ✘ No
https://borrtex.bandcamp.com/album/music-for-garyvee No No for obvious reasons, no No ✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryancollinseurope/2019/10/18/give-it-away-for-free-says-this-six-figure-musician/ ? no indication how a random forbes contributor came across this person No forbes contributor, not subject to editorial oversight No ✘ No
https://issuu.com/bizmediauk/docs/ami_march_2019/34 No interview ? No interviews are not coverage ✘ No
https://equipboard.com/borrtex No No No basically a showcase of his tools ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Praxidicae (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nomination of this page for deletion seems to be overly exaggerated. Everyone who has a basic knowledge of today's modern classical music knows that Borrtex isn't necessarily one of the main leading artists of this genre, but has definitely contributed significantly in the last few years by his work. User Praxidicae seems to be expressing his own subjective opinions about these sources and the artist, who by the way falls under the WP:MUSICBIO - 10) Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film... = Music featured on US Interior, Emmy award winning film, major licensing placements in international brands' commercials etc... plus also WP:COMPOSER 1) Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. = His song (We Are Saved) having over 1.7M of streams on Spotify (not too common in today's classical music), getting featured on Apple's contemporary classical music playlists - which are precisely curted by their music editos and curators, having tracks on YouTube reaching over 1M views etc... Praxidicae is mentioning the irrelevance of the subject in certain reference sources, but lacks to notice that the artist himself made an original music for the project that is referenced by the source - it's a key element to prove that his work was used in major projects in order to fall into WP:COMPOSER mentioned earlier - so how can that be irrelevant????? ... Praxidicae talking about grammar and spelling errors... --> Just made a bunch by putting the source assess table together, LOL... Overall: Taking a quick look at someone else's page in a quite narrow-topic music area, and baselessly trashing all the sources without doing a little bit more detailed research seems to me like an inconsiderate and completely unnecessary action. But hey, Wikipedia is free to be edited by everyone, so if more people suggest page deletion, then let's go and delete the page...... MusicHyper (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out what I've exaggerated, MusicHyper. Having 1 million views on youtube is neither notable nor impressive. Praxidicae (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And really, you wanna tell me this is a legitimate source? Did you look at their contact or about us page? The images are stock images and personal images of individuals who are not the supposed writers (I'll refrain from linking their actual profiles as they're low profile individuals.) It's a scam site. Praxidicae (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? So, you think that having 1M views on a classical / soundtrack album itself is quite a standard these days? It's not a Hip Hop what we're talking about here... Come on, don't be subjectively narrow-minded. MusicHyper (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes the one site you linked here doesn't really convince me by its authenticity, but still - having stock images doesn't really make the site fake - does it? ... MusicHyper (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only stock images, there are photos of real people who are not the people being represented and it is Black hat SEO in an attempt to falsify their clients importance. That aside, they're not reliable sites. You've not answered my question about what you think I've exaggerated. Praxidicae (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did partially answer your question about what you've exaggerated in my first reply. You clearly didn't look into the subject considering other important details already mentioned above. But okay, I will do the research for you and write down the specific places that I think you might have misunderstood. 1) Ostravan.CZ - One of the most significant online news websites about culture in the Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic - a place, where Borrtex was born. As you previously falsely stated: "per the notice at hte bottom, they're contributor pieces and anyone can edit" it's not true at all. They do have editorial staff who is in charge, see here. The staff is professionally educated as they are also part of the academy nominating the Jantar Awards. 2) The Frisky Not really too sure about what you see is wrong with the interview. Your explanation of reliability doesn't really make much sense to be honest: "not really sure an interview in the frisky which has a contact me of someones personal gmail is reliable" - what does that even mean? The Frisky is quite a popular online magazine which even has it's own Wikipedia page.... 3) Radio CZ references to a company CSFD.cz whose founder Martin Pomothy is a friend of Borrtex. The source is listed to confirm that the statement given in the artist page's text about //the largest film website in Czech Republic// is based on truthful facts. If you want, I can find even other sources online confirming this information. Given that Borrtex worked for this company in younger age, I personally consider this source as relevant and important. 4) Focus Age You state that there is "no mention of the subject". Again, false. Have you even try to read / translate that article? It describes a Warner Brothers documentary project of company CSFD.cz and Borrtex - Daniel Bordovsky, who at that time, was a full-time film maker. It's an important piece of information, as during the time spent in Hollywood he shifted to producing music. 5) Exploring Movie Studios: Warner Bros. Studios Correct, yes basically Czech IMDb, but it's not irrelevant as it clearly confirms Borrtex's name in that cinematography position... It's just information backed-up by these reference sources confirming it, isn't it the way it's supposed to be? 6) Music News - You say "clearly a PR piece" based on what? How can you make such a statement without no proof or explanation? Subjectively decided by your own opinion... 7) Xiaomi Film on YouTube Here it gets more interesting. You say "just a brief appearance in a short". Really? It's a movie published by one of the most significant phone companies in the world Xiaomi and was viewed over 200k times. There is no "brief appearance", the music in this whole movie is made by Borrtex and is properly credited in the film credits. 8) US National Parks Project issued by the US Government: National Park Service to help protect the national parks is not a relevant reference source for this artist??? 9) Montblanc Again, a music placement for this international well-known luxury brand featuring one of the TOP hollywood actors Hugh Jackman, is not a point to reference as well?? It's all sources that combined, they try to prove the notability of this artist. On the other hand, it seems to me that you are looking for a full feature cover article on NY Times. It's just never going to happen with artists that make contemporary classical music, just like Borrtex does. 10) RouteNote Yes, it is a music distribution service, but they have been verified as a company and have a blog / news site, where they release articles on all different kinds of topics. The company position has nothing to do with the article itself. But okay, I admit that I do unserstand your perspective on this one, and it might not look super independent as it still is a company's site... 11) ClickOrlando, NSPA Winners, Today.com, Popsugar UK - You say that it's "reliable but has nothing to do with the subject" or that it's "irrelevant to the subject as theres no mention". Again, maybe if you made a better research and actually read the Wikipedia page before nominating it for deletion, you would know that this was the first major scoring project Borrtex worked on. These four reference sources are not meant to provide you a link to articles about Borrtex. They are meant to provide you the confirmation of the statements given on the artist's page about this specific movie which won the student Emmy award. Based on the sentence N.10 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film..." and sentence N.1 of WP:COMPOSER "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." it's necessary to provide the reference sources about those mentioned projects, in order to reliably determine if the project was actually of a bigger scale or not. So, it's hard for me to understand that you think these pieces of information are irrelevant. 12) Audio Media International Completely reliable source, a UK based printed magazine about audio technology and music. I don't see anything wrong in here. The contact for their editorial staff is right here. And finally 13) Forbes Your shouting, almost disrespectful sounding statement "no indication how a random forbes contributor came across this person" speaks for itself. An article about the business side of music production posted on one of the most reliable news sites, and yet you still manage to find some flaws. Bryan Collins, or how you say "random contributor" has been writing for Forbes for over 2 years now and published more than 160 relevant articles. Of course, he's a contributor, but he still needs to follow certain rules and regulations given by the Forbes editorial staff. I'm really surprised by your negative attitude in this matter, all it takes is to read more information before making conclusions... That's all I have to say. But to be 100% fair, I do agree with you about the authenticity of some other sources (especially SweetStartups and the EU Soundtrack Magazine). Borrtex's page definitely does need to be edited, and those sources must be removed, in order to fully comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. But I strongly disagree with the page deletion itself. But that's just my opinion. Thank you for your time. MusicHyper (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Mehus Please consider reading also my response on his analysis. Thank you. MusicHyper (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in reaction to Praxidicae's source analysis, here I'm providing my graphic interpretation of the sources, as he clearly didn't research the details:

Source review (page creator)
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://borrtex.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BorrtexInDenikCZ.pdf Yes Printed article published in local newspapers. Yes You can see the online version of the article, plus see their editorial staff section based on regions. Yes One of maybe 2 major local news. ✔ Yes
https://www.ostravan.cz/60907/daniel-bordovsky-alias-borrtex-cesko-je-krasne-misto-pro-zivot-meli-bychom-si-toho-vice-vazit/ Yes One of the most significant online news websites about culture in the Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic. Yes As you previously falsely stated: "per the notice at hte bottom, they're contributor pieces and anyone can edit" it's not true at all. They do have editorial staff who is in charge, see here. The staff is professionally educated as they are also part of the academy nominating the Jantar Awards. Yes ✔ Yes
https://thefrisky.com/inspiring-story-about-young-musician-borrtex/ ? I agree, yes it is an interview, so not really independent. Yes Not really too sure about what you see is wrong with the interview. Your explanation of reliability doesn't really make much sense to be honest: "not really sure an interview in the frisky which has a contact me of someones personal gmail is reliable" - what does that even mean? The Frisky is quite a popular online magazine which even has it's own Wikipedia page. Yes ? Unknown
https://www.radio.cz/en/section/one-on-one/martin-pomothy-founder-of-countrys-largest-film-website Yes Yes Radio Prague is a major Czech radio station. See more on this Wikipedia page. Yes this is an interview, but this source's goal is to references to a company CSFD.cz whose founder Martin Pomothy is a friend of Borrtex. The source is listed to confirm that the statement given in the artist page's text about //the largest film website in Czech Republic// is based on truthful facts. And that is stated literally in the article headline, plus in the first paragraph, which is not yet part of the interview. Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.focus-age.cz/m-journal/aktuality/tym-csfd-natocil-svuj-prvni-serial--a-to-rovnou-v-hollywoodu__s288x13299.html Yes ? You state that there is "no mention of the subject". Again, false. Have you even try to read / translate that article? It describes a Warner Brothers documentary project of company CSFD.cz and Borrtex - it literally states his real name Daniel Bordovsky in the middle of the text. It's an important piece of information, as during the time spent in Hollywood he shifted to producing music. ? ? Unknown
https://www.csfd.cz/film/555022-prohlidka-filmovych-studii-warner-bros-studios/prehled/ Yes Yes Correct, yes basically Czech IMDb, but it's not irrelevant as it clearly confirms Borrtex's name in that cinematography position... It's information backed-up by these reference sources confirming it, isn't it the way it's supposed to be? Plus CSFD.cz is a major source people go to read about movies here in Czech Republic. They have a full editorial staff team and content administration team editing all these details. Also they have over 480.000 registered users. Just a quick research. Yes ✔ Yes
http://www.music-news.com/news/Underground/119167/Ambitious-young-composer-Borrtex-pioneers-distinctive-new-cinematic-style ? You say "clearly a PR piece" based on what? ? How can you make such a statement with no proof or evidence? Subjectively decided by your own opinion... ? ? Unknown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7aQIBFpb38 ~ Yes You say "just a brief appearance in a short". Really? It's a movie published by one of the most significant phone companies in the world Xiaomi and was viewed over 200k times. There is no "brief appearance", the music in this whole movie is made by the artist who is properly credited in the film credits. Yes ~ Partial
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/maintenance-backlog.htm ~ Yes Project issued by the US Government: National Park Service to help protect the national parks is not a relevant reference source for this artist??? Yes ~ Partial
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2863398170656175 ~ Yes Again, a music placement for this international well-known luxury brand featuring one of the TOP hollywood actors Hugh Jackman, is not a point to reference as well?? It's all sources that combined, they try to prove the notability of this artist. On the other hand, it seems to me that you are looking for a full feature cover article on NY Times. It's just never going to happen with artists that make contemporary classical music... Yes ~ Partial
http://routenote.com/blog/how-this-artist-went-from-thousands-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-streams-in-one-month/ No Okay, I admit that I do unserstand your perspective on this one, and it might not look independent as it's a company site... ? Yes, it is a music distribution service, but they have been verified as a company and have a blog / news site, where they release articles on all different kinds of topics. The company position has nothing to do with the article itself. ? ✘ No
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2019/02/11/dear-america-a-letter-from-generation-z-on-gun-violence/ Yes Yes You say that it's "reliable but has nothing to do with the subject" or that it's "irrelevant to the subject as theres no mention". Again, maybe if you made a better research and actually read the Wikipedia page before nominating it for deletion, you would know that this was the first major scoring project Borrtex worked on. Yes Local news broadcasting a TV event about the project. ✔ Yes
https://theemmys.tv/nspa-2019-winners-announced/ Yes It's an official winners list. Why would you say it's not independent Praxidicae ? Yes It's the official site of the National Academy of television arts and sciences. ~ ~ Partial
https://www.today.com/parents/teen-s-film-gun-violence-gen-z-wins-student-emmy-t166526 Yes Yes These four reference sources are not meant to provide you a link to articles about Borrtex. They are meant to provide you the confirmation of the statements given on the artist's page about this specific movie which won the student Emmy award. Based on the sentence N.10 of WP:MUSICBIO "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g...." and sentence N.1 of WP:COMPOSER "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." it's necessary to provide the reference sources about those mentioned projects, in order to reliably determine if the project was actually of a bigger scale or not. Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.popsugar.co.uk/news/student-gun-violence-impact-video-46861178 Yes Yes Same as above. It's quite hard for me to understand that you think these pieces of information are irrelevant. ? ? Unknown
https://issuu.com/bizmediauk/docs/ami_march_2019/34 Yes Yes Completely reliable source, a UK based printed magazine about audio technology and music. I don't see anything wrong in here. The contact for their editorial staff is right here. ? ? Unknown
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryancollinseurope/2019/10/18/give-it-away-for-free-says-this-six-figure-musician/ Yes Your shouting, almost disrespectful sounding statement "no indication how a random forbes contributor came across this person" speaks for itself. Yes An article about the business side of music production posted on one of the most reliable news sites, and yet you still manage to find some flaws. Bryan Collins, or how you say "random contributor" has been writing for Forbes for over 2 years now and published more than 160 relevant articles. Of course, he's a contributor, but he still needs to follow certain rules and regulations given by the Forbes editorial staff. Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

That's all for my perspective of how I see these sources... As mentioned in my text response, I'm adding my awareness that to be 100% fair, I do agree with you about the authenticity of some other sources (especially SweetStartups and the EU Soundtrack Magazine). Borrtex's page definitely does need to be edited, and those not reliable sources must be removed, in order to fully comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. But I strongly disagree with the page deletion itself. But that's just my opinion. I hope my graphic analysis might get to readers here more objective point of view than what you have suggested. Thanks. MusicHyper (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask how do you think he doesn't meet the notability criteria? It seems to me that he clearly matches the required 10th point in WP:MUSICBIO - his original music for an Emmy winning movie (half a million views on YouTube, plus above mentioned three reliable and independent news sources), plus the 1st point of WP:COMPOSER - his single released in 2018, having over 1.7M streams on Spotify - definitely not too common in classical music. Just to point out, if we were to use similar criteria for other contemporary classical music composers who have a page here on Wikipedia, then we can go ahead and nominate for deletion also Ólafur Arnalds: half of the reference sources are interviews, which are not independent, based on the opinion of the nominator, plus some small blogs and record lable articles... only one or two bigger reliable media mentions. Also David Morneau and his old-looking made up blogs?? Wow, and Eric Lindsay referencing only to his Soundcloud profile and his own website page? Not even talking about composer Anton Rovner and his three sources that are not even available online? I could go on forever.... We should definitely nominate those pages for deletion too. I'm just trying to explain that guys from this genre won't get the kind of news placements you're looking for. Ever. It's impossible. But that doesn't mean that they are not good or notable enough in their field of work. MusicHyper (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be appreciated if some editor or user who has a basic knowledge in classical / soundtrack music, could take a look at this. MusicHyper (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned several times. [1], [2], [3], [4] ;-) MusicHyper (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though I think this article has many flaws like Prax mentioned, I think we should give this article a third and final chance, but on some conditions, there needs to be more sources from a REPUTABLE publisher (e.g NY times, Times, etc.), also like Prax had mentioned this article needs pictures that are not copyrighted (like some of the not copyrighted images from Getty images), or if you have your own images (taken by you) of Borrtex, you can use them, BUT you need proof that you actually own them, if these standards are not met this article may get deleted (not by me, because I am an IP editor). You should also feel free to check out WP's guidelines on sources, copyright, etc. I should also mention that you should ask some editors at the WP teahouse to give you some advice on fixing this article. 96.230.240.122 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning (2015 film)

[edit]
Warning (2015 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)

Created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user in violation of their block, this is ineligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5 because they contributed only 39% of the content. Substantial edits were made by a sockpuppet (Sadmansakib625, 5%) of a different sockmaster, an WP:SPA (Golamrabbani112, 15%), and various IP editors (37%). We should assume that their contributions were in good faith.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a clone of IMDb, which aims to list the credits and basic details - the information that can be gleaned by watching it or reading its DVD packaging - of every film ever made. Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.

The article cites only a Wordpress blog and the Facebook page of Sadman Sakib Sifat (compare with the sockpuppet above), not reliable sources for what little content they support. Searches of the usual Google types, in English and Bengali, for coverage after the film was released, found: Bengali Wikipedia, BMDB (a Bengali IMDb-wannabe that has a history of copying from Wikipedia without attribution), and [104] a single review, less than 150 words, on an obscure website by an even less known reviewer. WP:NFILM accepts two or more full-length (not capsule) reviews by nationally known critics as other evidence of notability. This film doesn't meet that, or any of the other criteria of the subject-specific guideline.

Nor does it meet WP:GNG. From before the film was released there is one English-language source,[105] and numerous similar Bengali-language ones. They are press release-based promotional hype drummed up by the studio, director, and actors performing their pre-release publicity duties. There is no independent journalistic coverage or critical analysis. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep, The film was widely distributed as it was released in 83 cinema halls. In recent years Mental released in the highest cinema hall (150 cinema halls).S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NFILM says if a film "is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" (emphasis mine), that generally indicates that the required sources are likely to exist. I couldn't find any such reviews. In any case, can you find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, or just involved person X saying it was great to work with actor Y, and they hope people go to see the film? One reads stories of theatre owners in Bangladesh cancelling scheduled showings of other widely distributed films because only two people show up to buy tickets.[106] --Worldbruce (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participation in this discussion was relatively low, so if a serious objection to deletion is out there somewhere; drop me a line on my talk page and we can talk about it. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Den Mohor

[edit]
Den Mohor (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 cites: 1) barely 100 words in a publication that uses BMDB as a source (a Bengali IMDb copycat that has a history of copying from Wikipedia without attribution), raising WP:CIRCULAR concerns; 2) a source that doesn't mention the film; and 3) a passing mention within a list of films. Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali-script name, find many of the third type of source, but only that type. Remembrances of the late actor Salman Shah, who made 27 films, frequently list it among his 10 or so most successful ones, but say nothing of substance about it.[107][108][109][110]

Unlike IMDb, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't attempt to have an article about every film ever made. Wikipedia treats creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Despite the article being tagged for notability ever since it was created two-and-a-half years ago, sources that would support such a treatment have not been found.

The internet was not widely used in Bangladesh in 1995, when the film was released, so it's possible that offline sources exist, but my searches in a library with a substantial Bengali-language print collection haven't found any. WP:MUSTBESOURCES and "maybe there are better sources somewhere" are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I have no prejudice against re-creation if sources eventually surface, but we should not keep this article indefinitely in the hope that they will. Worldbruce (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cineflex

[edit]
Cineflex (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)

product advertisement for a non-notable product. I see passing mentions but no in-depth coverage. I am not sure how what is basically an electronic tripod is going to ever get in-depth coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Ka Doctor

[edit]
Dil Ka Doctor (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 film without any notable content. Why is this film notable? DragoMynaa (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • erm... Maybe because "Dr. Dilbagh is a leading Cardiologist in Bombay." and "he runs his own clinic as well as visiting patients in Dr. Vora's Polyclinic"? —usernamekiran (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a movie for that article is required. We call it 'Flop Film'. GargAvinash (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the movie itself was not wildly successful, it was a first for award-winning choreographer Longinus Fernandes (who went on to win a Fred Astaire for his later work in Slumdog Millionaire)- and was also the first and only film to star Indian-Israeli singer Liora Itzhak (who made album "Mala Mala," well-received in both India and Israel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.34.131 (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete apologies for the delay. I did perform a search on the film after commenting here, but I was under impression I already voted. The film is from mid 90s, and if it was notanle, then it would have at least two reviews online by now. It also fails all other requirements of notability criteria for films. The film gets very few passing mentions in the sources which discuss about something else. But the film itself lacks significant coverage, hence it fails general notability criteria too. There are articles of Fred Astaire, and Liora Itzhak already. The film is not notable, and the notability can not be inherited. The prose related to film can be covered in the biographies of people related to it. No need to have an article of non-notable subject. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leucrotta (Dungeons & Dragons)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Leucrotta (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)

The topic of this article fails WP:GNG, as the article cites only one non-primary source, and multiple sources are generally needed to establish notability. The sources mentioned in the previous AfD mostly discuss the real-world mythological creature with the same name, rather than the D&D monster. Not a very active user (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The prior AFD was kept on some very bizarre rationale, such as the spelling of the creature in D&D somehow made it more notable. Or, worse yet, the fact that some scholarly books on the actual mythological creature were published after the D&D creature was created must mean that they were "influenced" by D&D. A claim that is completely false, and has absolutely no sources indicating otherwise. The truth of the matter is that D&D did not create this monster, nor even this particular spelling of the creature. It was just one of the hundreds of D&D monsters that were adaptations of pre-existing pieces of folklore. All of the sources brought forth in the old AFD were on the mythological creature, and do not mention D&D at all. I don't know if "geek.com", the only current secondary source, is considered to be a reliable source, but even if it is, the coverage of the monster is a trivial "top ten" style list. All further sources that are actually valid reliable, secondary sources are discussing the mythological version, not the D&D version. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE - Wikipedia is not the monster manual and this has no notability beyond being part of the D&D game guide. The previous AfD is odd, the arguments are wrong. This article does not meet WP:GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE; fails the GNG Chetsford (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTGUIDE WP:GNG Bobherry Talk Edits 23:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A snow keep. There is consensus to retain the article for now, with a possibility of merger to appropriate article when 2019-nCoV dust settles down. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Centre

[edit]
Dabie Mountain Regional Medical Centre (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)

Not every newly created hospital in the most affected regions as a response to the Corona virus outbreak should get a Wikipedia article on it's own. The text of this article may be merged into
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak
I guess this page helps to check if the article fullfills the notability criteria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages
My pov is, the article doesn't fulfills the notability criteria. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW as nobody, not even the nominator, wants to delete this. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 13:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leishenshan Hospital

[edit]
Leishenshan Hospital (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)

Not every newly created hospital in the most affected regions as a response to the Corona virus outbreak should get a Wikipedia article on it's own. The text of this article may be merged into
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak
I guess this page helps to check if the article fullfills the notability criteria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages
My pov is, the article doesn't fulfills the notability criteria. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sdkb (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huoshenshan Hospital

[edit]
Huoshenshan Hospital (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)

Not every newly created hospital in the most affected regions as a response to the Corona virus outbreak should get a Wikipedia article on it's own. The text of this article may be merged into
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak
I guess this page helps to check if the article fullfills the notability criteria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages
My pov is, the article doesn't fulfills the notability criteria. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk)15:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Gold

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alison Gold (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 under WP:BLP1E. No significant coverage outside of "Chinese Food", the followup singles hasn't charted and her musical career has been inactive for over five years. Quickfingers (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexxhost

[edit]
Vexxhost (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 company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Prod removed by SPA w/ no comment, indications of COI/SPA/sock activity in this topic. Ping User:Praxidicae who is active in this area ([111]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article originated from AfC in 2014, with a rich history of reverted WP:SPA text additions in the past couple of years. Clearly this is a company going about its business and also supporting various initiatives ([112], [113], [114]) but notability is not inherited from these, nor is being the first to bundle this or that as part of the customer proposition inherently notable. My searches are finding listings and passing mentions regarding deploying OpenStack, but not the coverage of the company itself needed for WP:NCORP (happy to revise opinion if anyone identifies better sources). AllyD (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after six years, the only sources are two dead links to what look like press releases and the company's own website, which also shows some more press releases, but no indication that there's any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment non-trivial coverage exists. Not sure we should rush to delete this. More research is needed. Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that is non-trivial coverage. It is (apparently) an unrelated company's blog about their own software which works with "a multitude of cloud storage services", and Vexxhost gets a three-sentence mention as an example of such. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Passing mentions of the company do not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. As the article cited above notes, Vexxhost is but one of "a multitude of cloud storage services"; there does not appear to be anything remarkable or notable about it. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. Except for passing mentions. I seem to remember there being something about web-hosts in the notability guidelines. Although, I can't remember what now. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not trying to pile on, but there is nothing showing notability I can find. Tried Google News, Books, etc. and very little coverage at all let alone anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Robinson and Charlene Mitchell

[edit]
Scott Robinson and Charlene Mitchell (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 soap opera supercouple that is pure WP:PLOT OR reception, so in essence another case where TWO fictional characters get THREE articles (through said two articles about the individual characters are much better referenced). BEFORE shows only mentions in passing/unreliable fan sites. Can anyone find sources to warrant keeping this instead of just converting this into a disambig? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:37, 1 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 13:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per User:Toughpigs, this is easily sourced, it's just finding the time to do it. I own a copy of Super Aussie Soaps, so I can certainly improve that source and add the relevant information. I also have the various Neighbours books, which discuss the characters, and the special April 2012 TV Week dedicated to the character's relationship and wedding episode. I've already sourced their children and added a little bit of reception. The character's relationship is still brought up now by journalists writing about the show and is currently competing in a Guardian poll to find 'the most unforgettable Australian TV moment'. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only say that there's information in this article that it isn't present in the other articles, and it focuses more on the couple together not the individual characters. But the article is no longer full of plot and OR, which was the real issue. I plan on working on it further, adding a lead and so on. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sage 300 modules

[edit]
List of Sage 300 modules (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)

A list of unremarkable software plugins by mostly unremarkable software companies. Wikipedia is not a software catalogue. I'm also concerned about the ability of this list to be abused for spam. Many of the references are merely links to the vendors of these plugins and the two eWeek references are about the software itself, not the plugins. MER-C 12:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MER-C 12:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Swedish general election in Södermanland County

[edit]
2018 Swedish general election in Södermanland County (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 is an unnecessary level of detail of the election results, which are already covered at Results of the 2018 Swedish general election. Previous AfDs on results at county level have ended in deletion. The article creator has made various claims that the two are not comparable, however I have not been convinced. There is a difference with UK elections in terms of counties being used as multi-member constituencies in Sweden. However, constituency-level result articles for individual elections are also not generally considered article-worthy.

The content could be merged, potentially to the aforementioned Results of the 2018 Swedish general election or to a new article such as Södermanland County (constituency) that would detail results in this constituency at each election (which is more standard practice for election article series).

I am also nominating the same articles for deletion for the same reason:

Number 57 22:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Swedish counties are having the same role to play in elections as U.S. states have in theirs, hence WP:Notability is abundantly clear. "Län" to "county" is a bad translation first of all since they fill the role of English regions, only with administrative powers. Swedish counties are on the way to being renamed "Region", although this will not officially be in effect until 2022. Secondly all Swedish MP's are elected by the counties so long as they reach a 4 % national threshold of the vote to be eligible. UK counties do not elect a single MP, they are done by single-member local constituencies.[1] To delete articles regarding Swedish counties in terms of their electoral role would be the same as deleting U.S. state presidential articles. Since the counties are the source of each elected MP they are fulfilling the same role as the Electoral Collage in a Swedish context. Third of all, deleting these while keeping the US articles and the England/Scotland/Wales/NI ones, would involve discrimination against election articles from countries that are not part of the Anglosphere. Even though this is an English-language encyclopedia, it does not have an Anglocentric perspective in terms of its articles and coverage. So, from that precedent of the US articles of electing subregions meeting WP:Notability, there is no choice on this matter. These articles must stay up so long as they have relevant sources, which they have. The articles in question are professionally written and notable enough. No question about it.
As for merging, the articles would then become plainly way too long to be viewable, whereas at a second-level article basis, they are easy to comprehend and find as part of the navigational box. The deleter in question has clearly not understood but common sense must prevail. Glottran (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the point about length if merged, I would suggest not all the information is worth merging (specifically the breakdown of results by municipality, given the municipalities are only part of the constituency). For numerous other countries we have workable articles on multi-member constituencies, such as Madrid (Congress of Deputies constituency) or Warsaw I (parliamentary constituency). Number 57 22:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is not a merger, but a de-facto deletion and contradicts your suggestion. This whole thing has been done at a whim and has not been productive at all, I'm afraid.Glottran (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merging does not necessarily require all information to be kept. This has not been done at a whim, but rather as part of a desire to keep Wikipedia relatively consistent on what level of detail we have on national election results. Having Results of the 2018 Swedish general election and articles like Södermanland County (constituency) would replicate (for example) the information provided in Results breakdown of the April 2019 Spanish general election (Congress) and Madrid (Congress of Deputies constituency). What is the issue with this? Number 57 22:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained why U.S. states presidential articles are relevant if Swedish counties' (same role as the source of power) aren't (both are GE's for who becomes head of government) and instead are using rather irrelevant English county precedents when English counties do NOT elect MP's. That is why I'm saying this has been done on a whim with no basis in how the election rules work. Sweden has a PR system on paper, but for anyone getting more than 1/25 of the overall votes, they become eligible for where the election is decided: the counties. Every Swedish MP is representing a county. That is the big difference.Glottran (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly convinced that we need an article on the US presidential election for each state, but apparently there is consensus for the articles to exist given how many of them there are. However, I don't think the two are exactly comparable, so I do not believe the existence of those articles sets a precedent for the ones we're discussing here. I am yet to hear a convincing argument from you that these articles are worthwhile and several of the arguments you made in the discussion on your talk page were easily rebuttable.
I noticed you didn't answer my question above about what the problem is with following the Spanish and Polish article model. Number 57 22:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, they were not easily rebuttable. Especially since I follow the US state precedent for subjects that elect legislators/executives based from a second-order administrative jurisdiction. This is cut and dry that I've only followed precedent. There are just two different Wikipedia philosophies at play. I have an inclusive perspective in which I welcome articles that live up to WP:Notability as sub-articles, whereas you seemingly don't since you'd prefer not to have US state articles either. Ultimately, I believe Wikipedia would be a way worse place if people weren't allowed to write about their subjects of interests while providing relevant sources and can make a coherent argument for WP:Notability. The Spanish, Polish, Finnish etc are not relevant to this since they don't include party and municipality breakdowns and thus are completely different concepts. I'd be open to be making those too, but they are once again apples and oranges. Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it has to be deleted even though it matches the notability requirement. Wikipedia can't be run like that.Glottran (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish/Polish/Finnish articles are relevant – and certainly more so than the American articles – as they are all examples of multi-member constituencies being used to elect members to a national parliament. I cannot see the value of the municipal breakdown as it has no influence on the seat distribution. I'm sure the other results could be broken down to that level, but what would be the point? Number 57 23:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Municipalities form the county and do not take up that much space in the article either. The point is that this an encyclopedia and the more WP:Notability information available, the better. If someone is curious of how a Swedish election was broken down, they can find everything they need in my articles written by a real political scientist with a masters' degree at a professional standard of research.Glottran (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. WP:PRIMARY material and unecessary detail. This is stuff that after a general election is mentioned in news media in table format, but the county and municipality level results are AFAIK know not analysed, which makes this topic non-notable. Maybe some small portion of the info can be merged to the main article, but not at this level of detail.
Swedish counties are not comparable to US states in the presidential elections. The outcome of the election in a state usually determines which candidate all the electors will vote for, and the predictions and results are analysed in depth. Sweden has a proportional voting system which means that as close as possible, the seats will be allotted according to the percentage of votes in the country as a whole. The votes from an individual county is not even that important, since Sweden uses leveling seats to ensure that a party's seats are proportional to the votes they recieved. Also, not all counties are electoral districts, but Västra Götaland and Skåne counties contains several districts. Sjö (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 2010, the net difference of vote between the Social Democrats and the Moderates was 0.6 % but resulted in a five-seat difference of Riksdag representation because of how the county system worked even though proportionally the difference would've been two.[2] This was due to the one-sided nature of the Moderate Party wins in Stockholm County, whereas the Social Democratic vote was spread across the country. Västra Götaland and Skåne are divided into several districts for counting area convenience under old county lines, but they still gain their representation as members of said county and those subdivisions are all named after the county in question. So those points are half-truths since Sweden does not have a full PR for said reasons. This is not WP:PRIMARY since it's official statistics and therefore not biased in any way. These are just numbers. If a party does not perform in a county, they are not getting seats from there. Levelling seats are given to locations where the party in question did better than elsewhere, hence why a party with uneven distribution (Centre Party) did not get any representation from Örebro County in 2014 on 5.6 % of the vote compared to a party with a more even distribution (Liberals) who gained one on 4.3 % of the vote.[3] So, counties play a role in where the parties get their levelling seats too. Therefore the articles still maintain strong WP:Notability and are entirely in line with congressional articles about US states for sure, even if you don't accept the EC argument.Glottran (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is similar to the US articles and they elect MP's directly. The material is adequately sourced to the Swedish electoral agency and written at a professional level. I agree with the creator of said articles that second-level jurisdictions which select MP's meet WP:Notability just like the thousands of similar US presidential/federal election articles and that therefore it is a definite call from my side that the author's articles remain Marsh008 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is so painfully obviously a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Glottran – suddenly reappearing after five months with no edits, referring to it being written at a "professional level", not bulleting their comment, an odd reference to WP:Notability, and a strange habit of adding messing around with climate data in their userspace.[115][116] I hope some action is taken about this flagrant attempt to inappropriately influence the outcome of the discussion. Number 57 23:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if @Number 57: stuck to the discussion matter at hand rather than engaging in conspiracy theories. I have only one active Wikipedia account and anything else is defamatory. There are shades of WP:HA and WP:PA (both met by engaging in conspiracy theories) are highly unadvisable in this. Glottran (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks, defamation and conspiracy theories are really unfortunate. If you would win, at least keep it civil. Please. My two former Wikipedia accounts [1] and [2] are officially retired. I probably won't make any other county articles than the 2018 series anyway. Glottran (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so more folks can participate. It's great to see so much enthusiasm, but, please act civil towards each other and assume good faith. Also, please refrain from accusations of socking until the investigation is completed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20: I don't even know where to begin with this nonsense. First of all, I have already cleared a sockpuppet investigation, secondly, conspiracy theories are once more a form of personal attack, thirdly WP:NOTSTATS is even worse than the original argument. This is clearly not such a case given it details a second-tier subdivisions' results and not a statistical dump or anything like that. Yikes. I know I'm losing this due to lies and smears and it's a great shame. I can console you guys that my Swedish election series will be concluded in a few days. There is no point trying to do more than that with people like you lot around trying to delete what I'm doing. I'm a real political scientist doing real work with this and all I get is this, including a re-hashing of already debunked conspiracy theories? The only hope in this is that you didn't see that the investigation already is done. Otherwise all I can say is: Sigh.Glottran (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glottran: You could begin with showing some more civility. I only commented that the sockpuppet issue should be addressed at the proper venue: if it has been already resolved (which I didn't know at the time), then that's all for it. If I have offended you, I sincerely apologize because that was not my intention.
You won't be winning any argument just because of staunchly defending your own work and dubbing any arguments opposing it as part of any conspiracy theory, lies or smears. No one has said that your work is not valuable; to the contrary, I personally find the constituency part really useful, as only few users are knowledgeable enough of Swedish politics to come to this point of hard work. The point is that this degree of detail is not only excessive, but possibly counterproductive and against Wikipedia's own guidelines (detailing general election results at the municipality level is far too much work compared to the degree of notability that such an issue gets in reliable sources). As Number 57 and I have pointed out, you could possibly use your work and investigation to create articles on constituencies, which do get much more attention and would be far more useful to the casual reader. Impru20talk 20:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it's correct that the SPI proved that Marsh008 is not a sock account, the behavioural evidence suggests that the chances they joined this discussion at random (and were not recruited) are practically zero. Number 57 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Södermanlands län - Valda - Val 2018" (in Swedish). Valmyndigheten. Retrieved 15 January 2020.
  2. ^ "Valda - Val 2010 - Röster" (in Swedish). Valmyndigheten. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  3. ^ "Örebro län - Valda - Val 2014" (in Swedish). Valmyndigheten. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Z Lords

[edit]
Jo-Z Lords (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, no real sources found. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Turnpike Lane tube station. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turnpike Lane bus station

[edit]
Turnpike Lane bus station (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 bus station. Only 11 buses serve this bus station. There are no sources for this article and there is nothing impressive I have found that justifies keeping this article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juanita Martin

[edit]
Juanita Martin (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)

With all respect, this poet has only local coverage (I could not find anything else despite investing some time in the search), and it does not look like she ever published in major magazines / mewspapers. Let us discuss whether being a poet-laureate of Fairfield is suffficent claim for notability. Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Best

[edit]
Ben Best (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 appears to have been created and maintained by individuals with a close connection with the subject. When looking for sources, I find namechecks as a spokesperson for the Cryonics Institute but nothing substantive about him, outside the walled garden of cryonics websites (which are unreliable as they do not follow a reality-based view of the field). He may be considered important within the tiny world of cryonics, but that world is so small and so fringe that it does not look as if he's made any impression more widely, so fails WP:GNG. Guy (help!) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands - a quick WP:BEFORE shows overwhelmingly the writer and actor Ben Best (and not so much on him either - his article, Ben Best (screenwriter), was PRODed a year ago), with this Ben Best being represented by Wikipedia mirrors. I'll be happy to be shown wrong, but it's gonna take actual RS coverage to have anything to base a BLP on. It's possible he's had academic referencing too, though likely low-quality - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two Questions As an occasional reader and editor of Wikipedia articles related to cryonics, it's not clear to me that the small size of cryonics is relevant to the question of notability. Cryonicists will love the comparison, but the Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind. It's about as fringe and unpopular as you can get, but the church is "notable" because, like cryonics, the outrageousness of it generates media coverage and public attention despite the small number of adherents. A person like Shirley Phelps-Roper is the subject of a Wikipedia article only because of involvement with this fringe church. Ben Best is a substantial fish in the fringe but similarly notable pond of cryonics. As the successor of cryonics founder Robert Ettinger as head of the Cryonics Institute, Best would have been named or quoted in a large fraction of media coverage of cryonics during his tenure. Without paying for a news archive search, a few examples I easily found are The New Yorker, The Guardian, and The Atlantic which mentions that Best was the subject of the cryonics documentary We Will Live Again. Excluding 32 academic citations of his own 2008 journal article about cryonics, Google Scholar finds mentions of Ben Best or his other writings in several mainstream journal articles about cryonics, including Southwestern University Law Review, Engineering and Technology, and this and this twin articles in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Google Books also finds Best's involvement in cryonics mentioned in books, including The Book of Immortality: The Science, Belief, and Magic Behind Living Forever that discloses Best's cryonics-related inclusion in a documentary about the life of Frank Cole. Particularly relevant to the question of notability within cryonics, The Whole Death Catalog calls Ben Best's website, "The single most comprehensive online source for information about cryonics." My question is, given that all the "Delete" recommendations so far have been based on the present article stub containing almost no sources, and the fact that many editors feel that Best's original creation of the article himself back in 2005 is itself grounds for deletion regardless of sourcing, is there any point to adding reliable sources now? My other question is, if the article is deleted because of its present poor sourcing or illicit origination, could someone else like me recreate it with proper sourcing for renewed scrutiny as an article that was not created by its subject? Cryobiologist (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Merchant

[edit]
Shruti Merchant (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, written in promotional tone and filled with her notable relatives. Only one movie to show as an independent coreographer. The9Man talk 07:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject may become notable in future but it is not as of now. GargAvinash (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm actually not sure about this one. Yes, most coverage appears to be directly linked to her husband, Dhruv Bhandari, but there appears to be some coverage like this...she might've worked in a few notable productions too, strengthening her claim. And lastly, I might give her the benefit of the doubt due to the language component: i.e. there might be quality Marathi sources I'm not aware of. So, I'll abstain from a !vote until these aspects are elucidated. It goes without saying that the article needs serious cleanup. Best, PK650 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete notability is not inherited. Whatever non-significant coverage, and non-significant work she is getting is because her family. Other sources are routine coverage, some look like press releases/paid content for the "Taj Express" that she is direcor of, and the tours that they have performing theatrical musical “THE MERCHANTS OF BOLLYWOOD” as the assistant choreographer. The story of the show is based on the life of her sister Ms. Vaibhavi Merchant and her grandfather Late Shri B.Hiralal. which she is assistant director for (the quoted text is from article). The source provided above by PK650 is an interview where she is promoting herself/her work. She fails WP:NCREATIVE; and as she doesnt have significant coverage, she fails general notability guidelines as well. Even the wikipedia article had to mention her grand-father, father, sister, and what-not. A lot of the credits mentioned in the article cant be verified in reliable sources. More like, it seems she was an off-the-record side-kick ("assistant") for her elder sister. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Rowland (author)

[edit]
Marcus Rowland (author) (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 BLP has been sourced for the preceding 14 years to a birth certificate and to a website called "victorianadventureenthusiast.com." A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com) fails to unearth substantial additional sources. Largely composed of unsourced WP:OR, the article highly violates the privacy of a non-notable person. Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, you may be under the misapprehension that "notable" in this context means anything other than "meeting wikipedia's Notability policy". It doesn't. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, however, thank you for checking. Notability must be demonstrated, not simply declared. Chetsford (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article links to Wikipedia articles about two of his creations (Forgotten Futures and Diana: Warrior Princess) -- these have Wikipedia articles so are notable. There are also links to several notable things he contributed to. cagliost (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll nominate those two for deletion shortly. They don't seem to pass the GNG either. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Patriotic Party (Bangladesh)

[edit]
National Patriotic Party (Bangladesh) (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. The party also gets very ignorable amount of votes in two general elections in world's eighth most populous country Bangladesh. The party is not a registered party in Bangladesh (source in Bengali). S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 09:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Otago

[edit]
South Otago (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 is without any references and appears to mostly mirror Clutha District in scope. The name represents no established political or geographic area and it is questionable whether WP:COMMONNAME can be established - given the lack of references. Any details from this page can be merged into Clutha District and / or Dunedin City or similar as appropriate. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:Freeknowledgecreator I feel your above comment is questioning my good faith in bringing this deletion request to discussion. I think it would be good for you to strike, reword or delete your above comment before it comes back and bites you. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you question the existence of something that does clearly exist you can expect people to point out that your position does not make sense. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also part of an encyclopaedia published on the NZ government's web site. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately this reference does not back up the definition of South Otago as described by the article we have, nor the geographical locality discussed in the edit User:Freeknowledgecreator brought up above. This further indicates the lack of reliable references that support an actual "geographic area" known as South Otago rather than a general term to describe a relative and variable part of Otago as a whole. Lots of Planets have a South! Notability is only half of a reason to keep - even if notable it appears questionable to me that we need both a South Otago and a Clutha District article. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge as South Otago is a subset of Otago. It does not warrant a stand alone article. It is not defined by the NZGB, nor is a Region, District, Borough, County, or electorate. As previously stated it falls approximately within the Clutha District. The name is frequently used in newspaper articles within New Zeland, but for the sake of identity a redirect to Clutha District should surfice. NealeFamily (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Andropoulos and Betsy Stewart

[edit]
Steve Andropoulos and Betsy Stewart (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)

Effectively unreferenced fictional bio, fails GNG/NFICTION. No consensus on a prior AfD 10 years ago, but that was the usual 'nominated 20 articles' type of a mess. The one reference is possibly relevant to the particular EPISODE, no the fictional character. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:15, 17 January 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 17:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are easily accessible on Google Books. Are you doing a BEFORE check? -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a parent article on the ground that this article has been failing WP:NOTPLOT for 13(!) years now. Any real-world material on this couple can be added to the show's article or its the character list; no reason for this article to exist for a mere plot rehash. – sgeureka t•c 16:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wouldn't the sources provided by @Toughpigs: be better for a possible Betsy Stewart article since they seem to be primarily about the Betsy Stewart character and Meg Ryan's performance as opposed to the couple featured in this article? Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47: If this was a proposal to rename the page by someone who was interested in rewriting it, then I would definitely support that. At the moment, the option that's being discussed is to delete the page. Redirecting to the character list would be inappropriate, that list page has no actual article content. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response, and I completely understand. That would be a completely different conversation that should take place outside of an AfD, but it was just something that I thought about while reading your post. Either way, thank you for the sources above, and I never knew Meg Ryan was in a soap opera so I learned something new today. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for asking! :) -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - While I guess it's not impossible to have an article on a fictional relationship, the main articles of the series should be completely up to snuff before such hyperfocused splits are created. TTN (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of a supercouple is very important in analysis of soap opera narratives. See Luke and Laura for the most famous example. Also Soap Opera Supercouples: The Great Romances of Daytime Drama, Soap Opera Confidential: Writers and Soap Insiders on Why We'll Tune in Tomorrow as the World Turns Restlessly by the Guiding Light of Our Lives, Worlds Without End: The Art and History of the Soap Opera, the chapter "The Siren Call of the Super Couple: Soap Operas' Destructive Slide Toward Closure" in Staying Tuned: Contemporary Soap Opera Criticism, Serial Monogamy: Soap Opera, Lifespan, and the Gendered Politics of Fantasy and Screen Couple Chemistry: The Power of 2. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But nobody is proposing the article about the concept of soupercouple for deletion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TTN is suggesting that the idea of a notable fictional relationship is inherently bizzare, a "hyperfocused" article that "I guess it's not impossible" to consider. This suggests an unfamiliarity with the subject of soap opera narrative. In long-running soap operas, a "supercouple" relationship has its own identity that is discussed as a unit by both fans and academic sources.-- Toughpigs (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I very well understand the concept, but the idea that Wikipedia should catalogue information in such a way is strange. The characters in these cases are ultimately separate entities that can be brought together and torn apart by the storyline, so they are not inherently connected. Rather than documenting characters, it's simply documenting a specific strand of the story. There should be no particular reason to display information in such a way unless the two articles for the main characters are in such a state that even discussing the relationship brings about size concerns. TTN (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles exist. Are you proposing to create them? -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly sure any of the three topics currently meet the notability threshold, so redirecting and starting fresh would be the most sensible option. TTN (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm repeating myself from above, but I'll point once again to the book To Be Continued... Soap Operas Around the World, an academic analysis of soap operas, which has a full chapter on Betsy as a character, and Ryan's performance. If a chapter in an academic secondary source doesn't meet the notability threshold, then I don't know what would. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have redirects and keep proposed. Is anyone else interested in weighing in? Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 04:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Toughpigs. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirct the main body of the article is un-sourced and goes against guidelines because of it violating WP:NOTPLOT anyway. Articles shouldn't be an almost exact re-telling of something. They are meant to be summaries. So, there's no reason the information can't be merged or redirected into the articles about the characters or the specific soap in a more summarized manor. Looking through the list of super-couple's, a good portion of them don't have an article specifically on their relationship and the fact of being a super-couple alone does not guarantee an article on its own. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course not. I didn't say anything about notability though did I? I do wonder though why your so against the article being merged. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Well, this discussion is all over the place. But the copyright tag was correctly applied: this is a poorly rephrased copy of [118]. Although copyright does not subsist in pure data, it does subsist in a list such as this one whose composition was a creative process. Because of the copyright problem, the article must be deleted without regard to the disagreements here about the list's usefulness and other encyclopedic merits. Sandstein 18:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of commonly available chemicals

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of commonly available chemicals (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)

Even if there's sources, the list does not have a well-defined criteria for inclusion. GZWDer (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does "commonly available" mean? I live in a small village. I would have enough trouble buying milk and newspapers. If I go to the nearby (larger) village, there are shops and I can buy a range of bleaches and drain cleaners. But if I go into the industrial area of the same village, I can buy organic solvents - all just by walking in and waving cash. No ID check, no records, no licensing. I can't buy some things - CFC refrigerants, things on the Explosives Precursors list without a licence. I look online though, and (apart from eBay!) there are a range of chemical suppliers selling a whole range of materials, and properly packaged and labelled, again without needing any sort of ID or references. Then there's the Dark Web, where I shop for all of my red mercury and adrenochrome. But then, as a kid, I could walk into the city-centre schools' chemical supplier (their brand on every bottle in the school chemistry lab) and again (cash, no questions, even if I'm not tall enough to see over the counter) buy chromium perchlorates I'd hesitate to handle today (how did the pharaoh's serpent not kill us all?).
What does "commonly available" mean? This list looks like the sort of thing which had a place in the 1980s as a list of commonplace things which you don't know their main ingredient of. But that's defined by the composition of household chemicals (and "household" is then vague), not their availability. Available just doesn't cut it post-2000, in an era of easy web shopping. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 04:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. According to this article formic acid can be found at a 5% concentration in "Clorox Dual Action Toilet Bowl Cleanser". Should we list every chemical found in every shampoo? What about the common types of synthetic rubber found in automotive tires, which are very common. Literally everything is made of chemicals, and therefore everything commonly available is full of commonly available chemicals.--Pontificalibus 14:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list-based article has almost all notable entries with their own article and so satisfies WP:SAL as a valid standalone list; non-notable entries can be deleted. It is a nagivation aid with useful summaries and is valid as such, per WP:CLN. The inclusion criteria are not precise, but are reasonable in the sense that editors can discuss marginal entries and come to consensus on whether to include them. We have plenty of lists with imprecise inclusion criteria, e.g., List of philosophical concepts, and our category system is full of them. Hence "imprecise inclusion criteria" criticsm by itself is not a compelling reason for deletion. A well-formed list article with no major problems suggests keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 14:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a lot more than simply blue-links to satisfy WP:SAL - it must satisfy all the other core content policies including WP:N and WP:NOT. Regarding the inclusion criteria, sure there doesn't need to be an absolute definition so editors have some leeway in deciding what to add to List of philosophical concepts. However this article is more like List of philosophical concepts that are easy to understand or List of commonly seen birds. There is a reason why we only have a couple of lists beginning "List of commonly..." Also the "useful summaries" you describe are entirely unreferenced and should be all be deleted because Wikipedia is not a dangerously inaccurate self-published home chemistry how-to book. --Pontificalibus 16:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think Mark viking has the right idea here. Basically, it's pretty obvious what the list means, and ordinary day-to-day editing can settle any problems with it. I don't think that listing every compound in every shampoo (or every one in the human body, for that matter) is really a possible failure mode here. "Commonly available" does not mean "commonly existing"; it means that the chemical can be obtained in sufficient purity to be useful. So, yeah, whatever problems the page has, I can't really say that deletion is the solution. XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The actual original source of the article, since removed, is [119]. The list is just a duplicate of that, and I have tagged it as a copyright violation. His description of inclusion criteria has "I hope that this updated version of my original list might be of help to the amateur scientist community. I would expect the list to be very useful when trying to replicate older experiments where the required chemicals were available at the local hardware store of a prior era. The list might also be very helpful to students working on science fair projects and looking to source common chemicals without credit cards, shipping delays, and mail order hassles." This is not the basis for an encyclopedia article. Reywas92Talk 21:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are 2 previous AfDs for this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kitchen_chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_commonly_available_chemicals One is from 2006 the other 2013. Bobherry Talk Edits 23:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete several reasons:
    1. In legal terms, this page is an "Attractive nuisance" and suffers similar difficulties as the tables of energy content, because the context is not clear to the 'average enthusiastic editor', who just pastes stuff in s/he found in a book. For this reason, the article itself tends to become of poorer quality over time, and is a high cost / low value article from the perspective of the governing project (WikiChem).
    2. Compare Logically, the hypothetical contrapositive list: List of chemicals NOT commonly available should be as well defined as the proposed list, but intuitively we know it's not a useful or well-bounded article.
    3. Compare List of people from California. I live in California, but I don't meet WP:N. Unfortunately every "chemical" (Element or Compound) does meet WP:N, so the mathematical cross product is vast: Water, Gold, Carbon dioxide, ethylene glycol, methanol and acetyl salicylic acid should all occur in the list, since they're all "commonly available": either naturally occurring or in OTC products.
    4. Consider how long it will be before the equivalent of the castoreum nerd comes along and does add every compound listed in shampoo to the list. It's correct to add them, but essentially dilutes the usefulness of the article. Anytime a correct addition to a list makes the list itself less useful is an indicator that the list is not a good idea in the first place.
Riventree (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is problematic, as "available" doesn't cut it any more. A better definition (for the same scope) might be as 'chemical components of common household products'. But this is sourceable (per item), does have some value as an overall list, and so I've no wish to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRITERIA, and Riventree. This is a textbook example of an unmaintainable list since there will never be a way to write coherent inclusion criteria. shoy (reactions) 16:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Nice to have, renaming it to "List of household chemicals" or something along those linse. But its good to have and would be an wast to delt. 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBloodCat (talk • contribs)
  • 'Delete 'Commonly available' will depend on where you are in the world, depending on local regulations, market access etc. The page therefore offers little more than an opinion, and a EU/US-centric one at that. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Though perhaps under a different name, but it's up to editors to agree on it. Sandstein 18:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocide of Uyghurs

[edit]
Ethnocide of Uyghurs (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 believed it does not meet WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as it suggests Chinese government's "crime" Mariogoods (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21talk 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, the horrific and terrible policies of the Chinese Communist Party towards the Uighur ethnic minority, including mass imprisonment of more than a million people indefinitely without trial, the demolition of mosques and graveyards, and other such phenomena are well-documented in reliable sources. I can see that an over-arching article dealing with all of them may well be justified if supported by sourcing, and I am not sure that there is any other such article on Wiki. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats The Wall Street Journal so yeah I think your question is answered. We include it in some form. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are public figures, per WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLPPUBLIC) "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” (emphasis added). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we must have several secondary RS which claim the involvement on these specific people. Was it their order? What was the "chain of command", exactly? No one doubts, but we must have RS telling this and make in-line referencing to them. This page has no "Responsiblity" section. It should. My very best wishes (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to mariogoods, I agree with your assertion that simply implicating the Chinese Government or CCP is not a de-facto BLP concern vis-a-vis its leadership (per WP:BLPGROUP as cited by Jancarcu). As for personal responsibility if its reliably sourced yeah we should include it, but I don’t think the need for that is terribly urgent as this is the sort of thing that works better in hindsight. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the body is currently somewhat WP:SYNTH, some of the RS sources cited in the article do explicitly use "ethnocide" or "cultural genocide", which makes the article subject. in principle, legitimate. WP:BLP is not really a relevant reason to delete this article because the Chinese Government is too big to be covered under WP:BLPGROUP's provisions for smaller groups. Jancarcu (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. This deletion attempt appears to be an attempt to cover up a horrific crime of cultural extermination, for which ethnocide is the proper term.IceFishing (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move back to Ethnocide of Uyghurs in China. This is the actual subject of the page. The subject must be specific. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reform. Open to renaming as "Accusations of ..." (and whatever "ethnocide"/"cultural genocide"/etc people like). Too valuable (notable) a page to delete outright. However, encyclopedic tone could be enforced -- i.e. '"re-education"', with quotes, not "brainwashing". For example, Chinese gov't POVs should be represented (and labeled as such of course). "Incentives for Uyghur women to marry outside their race" -- just say "marry non-Uyghurs", less cringey in English. Cleanup not deletion. Also, the BLP argument is a bit much -- if we took this to its logical conclusion, we'd have no page for Abu Ghreib or any other war crime with living persons included in the accused party.--Calthinus (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now I agree that the article should not be deleted. However, the NPOV problem is still existed. Mariogoods (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to something less POV. Ethnocide means the killing of an ethnic group. I am not clear what the distinction between it an genocide is, but the meaning ought to be the same. I do not want to imply that what is going on is not horrific; it certainly is, but it is mass re-education, not murder. I would suggest Chinese repression of the Uyghars, 2010s-date would be more NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron:Thats not the definition of Ethnocide. From an NPOV standpoint cultural genocide is probably better however many ethnologists use the terms interchangeably. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not what ethnocide is but, nevertheless, while obviously ethnocide is not quite genocide it is still widely considered a deeply heinous criminal act by a state actor. Another term that is also of relevance is "ideological genocide" where an ideology is eradicated through trauma, coercion and selective systematic murder of high level adherents. --Calthinus (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree entirely with the definition of ethnocide that wikipedia uses it would appear you are here to WP:right great wrongs then, no? Please provide sources to support your argument. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Cultural genocide of Uyghurs might be a more precise title, but not sure, because this is not just brainwashing, indoctrination and destroying national culture. Things like illegal detention of millions, forced abortions, organ harvesting, and mass surveillance go beyond the cultural genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Cultural genocide would be an acceptable term in this case as there is an element here of forcing people to abandon their traditions through often violent coercion; ideological genocide can be a goal that uses cultural genocide as a means, the latter is a tangible event that becomes a page topic. Widespread usage is of interest perhaps to the discussion of a name. Also agree that many use the terms interchangeably. Google News suggests that "cultural genocide" is more common than "ethnocide" in this case (Cultural genocide -- 925 hits in English specifically [[121]], ethnocide only 39 [[122]]).The results for cultural genocide, I think, also help demonstrate this page's clear notability. --Calthinus (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Allegations of" "Cultural genocide of Uyghurs": It seems that the WP:COMMONNAME indeed uses "cultural genocide" instead of "ethnocide". The other NPOV issues are more cleanup than reorganization than AfD issues. — MarkH21talk 05:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "Allegations of" to rename target because the labeling as “cultural genocide” / “ethnocide” are so far only from individual critics, with no usage from nations, major international organizations (e.g. the UN), or other similarly prominent groups. — MarkH21talk 19:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename Both "Cultural Genocide" and "Ethnocide" appear to be terms used exclusively by anglophone governments in the global west. Other scholars have concluded that these events are more similar to "cultural re-education", a la cultural revolution or great leap forward (or perhaps the Canadian residential schools once used in Canada). BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 22:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Canadian residential schools#Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that was definitely cultural genocide. Its even the concluding sentence of the lead "The TRC report concluded that the school system amounted to cultural genocide." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both "Cultural Genocide" and "Ethnocide" appear to be terms used exclusively by anglophone governments in the global west.... What? In fact, the concept of forced cultural assimilation is very much in use in the ex-Soviet world, so plenty of non-Anglophone non-Westerners involved... --Calthinus (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus: I think that BrxBrx meant that those terms are used for this particular case in China by largely western sources. — MarkH21talk 05:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21 Regardless, here are thousands of results for "kulturel soykirim" Uygurlar -Wikipedia [[123]]. Not an "anglophone" POV by any means. Give or take Turkey as Western, it kinda straddles that boundary. --Calthinus (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I agree with your suggestion but find it hard to determine which name should we use, and the move template seems only work well with ccertain title. Mariogoods (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_February_1&oldid=1234120047"