Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 February	9 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Isoyip

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NSINGER (no significant acting roles; no notable musical works; no awards). No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources – most of what's available online seems to be gossip sites, blogs and social media. Reads like a vanity page. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO; she is an unknown figure in the Nigerian music industry. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I'm inclined to agree with the nominator (as regards the subject's acting career, anyway), but would be interested to hear people's opinions on the reliability of Vanguard, BellaNaija as sources, since there are a few such articles on the subject—is there a consensus? Dflaw4 (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dflaw4:, Vanguard is reliable, Bella Naija is not. Mahveotm (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflaw4: Both Vanguard and Bella Naija are reliable sources, however, the link to Bella only shows her music video. It's also worth noting that the page includes a link to Punch which is another reliable independent source ItsBiyi (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahveotm and ItsBiyi, thank you both for your feedback! Dflaw4 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that my vote is based solely on the subject failing WP:NACTOR, and I defer to others on whether she passes WP:NSINGER. (She may pass WP:GNG because she has a fair amount of coverage.) Dflaw4 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG neither does the subject scale WP:MUSICBIO as indicated brilliantly by Versace1608, nor does she satisfy WP:ANYBIO also. Celestina007 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Mahveotm (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Liberty Party Australia

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

Non-notable minor political party (quite possibly even WP:NFT). User:MB had tagged it for notability and then PRODed it as "Cannot find significant coverage in independent sources"; dePRODed and even detagged (without fixing the problem...only cites are PRIMARY or DEADLINK badly enough cannot verify) by creator. DMacks (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who PRODed it, not MB. I could not find coverage so recommend delete. b uidhe 23:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry for misreading the history of PROD vs tag! DMacks (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers important local issues and is an important contributor to politics in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne. This article will only gain further traction, it is highly relevant to many people. The second reference is not a DEADLINK, it is a citation and link to the place of purchase and official website for a book that makes mention of the articles topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Editorias (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC) — Dr.Editorias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A school yearbook is likely neither reliable nor independent. The news website is reliable but you would need to provide a working link or verifiable citation so that someone besides you could find it (WP:V). b uidhe 00:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search produces no sources at all which demonstrate that this political party exists, and it doesn't appear on the Victorian Electoral Commission's list of Currently registered parties. As such, WP:ORG and WP:V clearly aren't met. Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent hoax. Cannot find any sources at all and clearly does not meet WP:GNG. At best looks like a school project. Bookscale (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not notable. Nothing to demonstrate existence. Not registered at either state or federal level. (Note that the three principals named in the article are the names of real people who seem to have attended Yarra Valley Grammar. There are easily findable sources indicating this.) Could be a hoax or just a "naive" group of otherwise genuine people. Aoziwe (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find a single reference in a ProQuest database search of Aust and NZ newspapers. Fails WP:NOTE. Cabrils (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreliable and no evidence of existence, does not pass WP:NOTE (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC) - This edit by Dr.Editorias[reply]

"Comment The above unsigned vote is the article creator...Gogolwold (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explain by others adequately already.Gogolwold (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kweku Anno

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

Not thought to be notability criteria. Was proposed for deletion in 2017, with minimal improvements since then. Kj cheetham (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:ECONOMIST. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: It fails WP:GNG, delete for now. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Peng (microbiologist)

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

This is an ordinary Chinese researcher that works in a larger team at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is tied up the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. His boss, Shi Zhengli, the leader of the team, has become notable in this crisis. Howevre, Zhou's only claim to fame is that a website called Zero Hedge doxed him on Twitter as part of a discredited conspiracy theory, which BuzzFeed News covered as: A Pro-Trump Blog Doxed A Chinese Scientist It Falsely Accused Of Creating The Coronavirus As A Bioweapon. Twitter banned Zero Hedge as a result of the article (Bloomberg CBS Washington Post), and the theory was debunked (Washington Post). Case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and he is not remotely close to any kind of WP:NPROF/WP:NACADEMIC, as he is a mid-level researcher in a bigger team at the Institute (e.g. he gets his name added to lists of names from papers the Institute published on the virus). Britishfinance (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstration yet of satisfaction of any of the eight pointers at WP:NACADEMIC, and per BLP1E. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Zezen (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom! Idolmm (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Abbott

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

Previously deleted for lack of coverage and for being a hoax. I can't find any evidence that this person exists (everything I found online appears to be citogenesis that traces back to this page). In order, the sources are a Wikipedia mirror, a Consumerist page which cites Wikipedia and existed after this page was created, Docstoc, which is also a Wikipedia scrape from after this page was created, Answers.com (which is not at all a reliable source), and N-Sider. Wayback Machine doesn't have that page in its records, and n-sider tweeted that they don't think that page ever existed. This appears to be a hoax page that has lingered for a decade. creffett (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, I can also find zero sources which attest to anything about this purported executive. Even in the highly unlikely event that he ever did actually hold the claimed role, businesspeople aren't handed an automatic notability freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage about them in real media — this is exactly why I always harp on the fact that the notability test for people is not the things the article says, but the quality and depth of the sourcing that can or can't be shown to support that the things it says are true. But as the response thread on that N-Sider tweet reveals, the much more likely explanation here is that some random teenage gamergeek named Conrad Abbott decided to try to anoint himself a corporate president on a user-generated discussion forum for shits and giggles — and as noted by the nominator, all of the sources that "support" the claim indeed took their information from us, and thus aren't legitimate verification that he ever really held the role. A person who had actually been president of the Canadian division of a major multinational corporation would have gotten coverage in at least Canadian newspapers — as witness the fact that in the exact same database, I literally get hundreds of hits on "Nintendo Canada" which do name senior executives with that company (such as Ron Bertram and Pierre-Paul Trépanier.) But in the entire past 40 years, the only "Conrad Abbott" who has ever gotten one word of coverage in any Canadian newspaper was a non-notable second-place finisher in a local Kiwanis Music Festival, not a president of Nintendo Canada. Burn it with fire, and brimstone, and maybe even some salt. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxes need to be driven out. We need to do much better at removing articles on non-notable people from Wikipedia as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with what's been said above, as most of the content online seems to have been copied from Wikipedia, so it's self-perpetuating. I'm not entirely sure it's a hoax, but surely someone that has such a prominent position would get some coverage. Nintendo America Inc seems to cover both Canada and the US, and their CEO is Reginald Fils-Aime. So definitely not this guy, whether he exists or not. And this guy would be non-notable anyway per the GNG. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy L. Lansky

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

Non-notable minor ex-academic, non-notable crackpot Orange Mike | Talk 22:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrote one book back in 2003, doesn't seem notable to me. Kj cheetham (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Actually pretty well known for her work and for the two books she has written. Both of her books have a lot more Amazon ratings that my book has. Nom just doesn't like her "crackpot" ideas, which is not a reason to exclude her from wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find independent reviews (other than on Amazon), or sources that have more than a mention about her? Please see my comment at WP:FTN, without better independent coverage I'm also about to endorse deletion for lack of notability. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 03:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on revealing your COI at any point? "new bio of a notable friend" Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot access the Psychology Today article, but the other two independent (although still in-universe in their field) books Integrative Psychiatry and Brain Health (that only uncritically cites her own book) and Fundamental Research in Artificial Intelligence at NASA only have short mentions of Lansky, not significant coverage. The other sources are authored or co-authored by Lansky. This does not meet WP:NBIO (quote: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.") and the lack of an article on Wikipedia may be better than one that is critical (in case notability, if any, was only derived from the controversial views she promoted; but if that was the case, wouldn't there also be more coverage in independent sources?). —Paleo Neonate – 06:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Anti-vaxxer who cured Autism (capitalised) through homeopathy. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Paleoyoungster. I’ll format my I !vote when I’m not using my iPad. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reality-based sources describing the subject. Guy (help!) 15:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of in-depth independent sources, as per Paleobaby. User:Dicklyon, do you indeed have a COI here, as asked by Andy Dingley above? Bishonen | talk 21:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I have disclosed that Lansky is a friend. I've known her since 1981 through mutual friends in the Silicon Valley tech community. Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough significant coverage from reliable sources to establish WP:GNG and does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close: Fails GNG. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mama Lo's

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

Extremely niche and nonnotable article about a restaurant in a mid size florida town that has been defunct for over a decade, and its owner perished over a decade ago. No article about the location can be found from under a decade ago, never the less not appearing with in the first 3 pages of google search. After a notability tag just under 2 months ago was posted, the article has yet to be improved. - AH (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NTEMP The restaurant appears in many books. Lightburst (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG:

Underground Gourmet: Restaurants, Recipes & Reflections. Seaside Publishing. pp. 182-185.
Southern Food: At Home, on the Road, in History. UNC Press Books. pp. 75-76.
Blue Plate Specials & Blue Ribbon Chefs: The Heart and Soul of America's Great Roadside Restaurants. Lebhar-Friedman Books. pp. 129-131. (Snippet view)
Two for the Road: Our Love Affair With American Food. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 168.
"Mama Lo serves up a feast in her unpretentious Gainesville cafe. Ocala Star-Banner.
"Gainesville’s Diverse Culinary Past". Home - Living in Greater Gainesville.
"Mama Lo dies at 85". The Gainesville Sun.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found the same sources specified above. Meets GNG. PK650 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG. --Slashme (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IMPATIENT: "After a notability tag just under 2 months ago was posted, the article has yet to be improved." There's no deadline. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhalpara Sapra Mosque

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

No citations despite the article having existed for over a decade. Searching online and in Google scholar, I was able to find some "customer" reviews on Google, but nothing reliable. Bengali Wikipedia has this citation for its linked article, but I can't even find a mention of the subject in there. It's possible someone may be able to find coverage in local sources that I can't access, but until such sources are found, I'm doubtful of the usefulness of keeping an unsourced article that isn't even clear on what the subject's name is. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claim to notability in an area which is surely thick with mosques. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every mosque is notable, and any criteria less inclusive would exclude this mosque.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Sharp

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

Much like The Spurs, this seems to be a case where meeting at least one criterion of WP:NMUSIC (namely, having a charted single) is outpaced by WP:V.

Searching "Rosemary Sharp" "Canyon Creek" gave no results on Google Books or Newspapers.com.
"Rosemary Sharp" any of her singles gave no results on Newspapers.com.
The only hits for "Rosemary Sharp" "If You're Gonna Tell Me Lies" on Google Books are the Joel Whitburn Hot Country Songs books, which verify the Billboard chart positions and no more.
The only results for "Rosemary Sharp" any of her song titles on americanradiohistory.com are just the chart listings from Billboard and RPM, except for one picture of her with a caption, and one passing mention of a radio program director giving approval to the single. No reviews of her singles were ever published as far as RPM and Billboard are concerned.

Normally an artist with a top-10 hit on any major chart would be notable without question. But unlike with The Spurs, where one source was eventually found, the evidence seems more on the "fails WP:V" end. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Lest @Chubbles: state, as was done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooh & the Inspirations, "the subject charted", I will point out that it's low charting of singles (which usually sell better than albums in country music) and on minor charts so it has not contributed to anything that could be considered notability. Ergo, while WP:MUSICBIO is met, notability does not exist for the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess I'm getting predictable? But, yes, this passes WP:MUSIC by a country mile, with four charting singles. That they are low on the charts isn't the issue; charting at all, with four separate singles, is far and away sufficient indication of musical notability. We should not expect a bounty of Gnews hits for a musician who had hit singles in the mid-1980s; this is a classic case of why WP:MUSIC is so valuable - because it provides a concrete, independent indication of larger significance (via charting singles) where the usual search engines are likely to be a poor yardstick of the historical record. Chubbles (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that a website that has nearly every issue of Billboard, Radio & Records, Gavin Report, Cash Box, and RPM is a "poor yardstick". I've found artists in the 21st century who charted once, got literally zero coverage, and were never heard from again. Would you be able to find anything on Mickey Dimichele? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are six important magazines, but they are hardly comprehensive - and, mind you, she did make the Billboard charts, four times (and the Canadian charts! An international top-20, three times!!). We have long held charting singles as the gold standard for musician notability (much like fully-professional league play for WP:SPORT), and yet strangely today I find myself in two discussions arguing WP:MUSIC against GNG-or-bust positions. Is there some wind that WP:MUSIC is to be deprecated, or something? I sure missed the boat on that RfC. Chubbles (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Explain to me how "six important magazines" are not enough (ETA: Especially when one of those six magazines is the exact one where her song got to #9). Explain to me how literally thousands of newspapers stretching centuries -- including the Nashville newspaper, which one would expect to mention a charted country artist at least once -- are not enough. We're not saying that WP:NMUSIC should be deprecated, just that it's not ironclad. Common sense should prevail that if there is literally no coverage found among what is clearly a fairly wide net of sources. It's a big Internet, and these are exactly the sources we should expect to have given this artist coverage at least once. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have reliable sources substantiating that this artist was an international hitmaker. That is what it means to be a notable musician. (Or at least, it is most certainly, and obviously, one of the senses of what we mean when we say "notable".) It is verifiable, supported with reliable sources, and meets common sense about what the notability goals are supposed to accomplish. That is sufficient; it meets the minimum threshold for inclusion here. Chubbles (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"International hitmaker" is a stretch when her song only got to a rock bottom position on a genre chart, and only got to #9 in Canada because it met CanCon laws. What is verifiable here besides "she charted"? Literally not a single iota of biographical information about her is verifiable. Can you find any biographical info on her? Because I sure as shit couldn't. And that's what matters moreso than the numbers. WP:BURDEN falls on you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the Whitburn country book, but he usually provides some basic biographical data, if this is a good-faith effort to improve the article. As far as I'm concerned, if the article only provides the chart information, that's fine. It's okay to have a stub for an encyclopedic topic. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the article as is. Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do own the book and literally all it says is "Born in Fort Worth, Texas" which is not corroborated by any other sources. You're fine with a WP:PERMASTUB that doesn't argue any notability? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, we're able to verify her place of birth! A little biographical information. Yes, there's nothing wrong with permastubs - sometimes, articles will be short. The article plainly states notability. Chubbles (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Chubbles in that the individual does clearly fulfill WP:MUSIC. The issue wouldn't be as clear-cut if they'd only charted once, and only maybe. But repeatedly, and not to mention in a chart recognized by WP:CHART? We have guidelines for a reason, and it is in these cases where that guidance proves invaluable, because it allows us to make an accurate statement regarding notability when the article would otherwise be destined for deletion. That the article is a stub is of no relevance in this discussion. Please adhere to guidelines unless there are aggravating circumstances; they exist for our benefit. Best, PK650 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{@PK650: "Please adhere to guidelines"? So WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:GNG are no longer guidelines? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you don't misconstrue what I said, please. My view is that WP:MUSIC is to be used in precisely these situations, hence my leaning towards keeping the article. We can disagree, obviously. You seem to argue that one needs many quality sources on top of satisfying certain field-specific criteria, and that's completely understandable. Some believe WP:GNG should take precedent over everything else. We don't all have to think alike, you know! I think the encyclopedia would be much poorer if we were so orthodox in our thinking. Best, PK650 (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PK650: You're still ignoring the main thrust. Where are the sources? I found literally nothing. Is this article somehow allowed to circumvent any sourcing policies simply because the subject charted? I wasn't aware that WP:RS and WP:V were only suggestions now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accosting me and whomever disagrees with you. This is a deletion discussion, not some sort of ritual where everyone says yes. I've seen you take a similar approach in different music-related AfDs. Let people express their opinions and consensus be reached in peace. Chubbles and I shouldn't feel afraid of participating. Thank you, PK650 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only charted low on a sub-chart and doesn't seem to have anything else source wise aside from that. Sounds not notable to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason why WP:NMUSIC says that we should keep pretty much anything that charts is to avoid long contentious discussions like this one. She passes WP:NMUSIC because she had four singles that charted on Billboard. She is hardly a garage band. This is a simple, objective standard which should be followed. Samboy (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So keep anything that has a controversal discussion even if there's no sources huh? Sounds like a good way to do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not what I said. Please re-read my keep vote. Samboy (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"'we should keep pretty much anything that charts is to avoid long contentious discussions'. Sounds like that's what your saying to me. I see no caveat in that there still needs to be broad coverage in usable sources. Plus, that's exactly why you voted keep here. To help avoid contentious discussion right? Even though there isn't broad, reliable coverage of the person. Or was it some other reason that I'm missing? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ever state that a controversial deletion discussion is grounds for keeping an article. To address what you are saying, “broad coverage” in the context of musicians and bands includes being on a reliably sourced notable chart. Being on a chart from a reliable source (e.g. Billboard) is in and of itself significant coverage as per WP:NMUSIC and as per previous deletion discussions. Samboy (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Being on a chart from a reliable source (e.g. Billboard) is in and of itself significant coverage", I don't know if I'd agree with that. At least for the person having their article. Maybe in a list or something, but this is an encyclopedia and encyclopedia's are dependent on content. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of less then stub articles that should be lists trying to be passed off as legitimate encyclopedic content. Like in this case, all we know about the person is that she had some chart topping music. We know absolutely nothing else about her though. The page is suppose to be about the artist, and there's literally nothing about her on it. That's not encyclopedic at all. To me, the chart thing is secondary to the general GNGs. That's why the GNGs are "general". They apply in a wide range of cases. Otherwise, why have them? Because every topic has its own specific notability guidelines that we could follow instead. In this case the person was like 42 on a sub chart or something. I definitely don't think that's worth ignoring the GNG rules over. Maybe if she was at least in the top 10 or something beyond just essentially being a one or three hit wonder, but in this case it would only be for a list. Articles are meant to be "articles." I'd assume anyone that charted high enough for an article would also have broad coverage though and I'm pretty sure the rule assumes that also. Not that we would save an article about someone, with zero content in the article about them, just because they were 78th on some sub chart. No where does it say the charting rule supersedes the GNG either. Plus, I don't think every one hit wonder band or song should have an article about them. Especially in a sub category of music and if there's nothing else to have in the article. Plus as a side note to that, wouldn't using billboard as its own citation be considered a primary source, as its self referential? I'd think for it to be a reliable source it would have to be an article about the artist charting. Not the chart itself and in this case the Billboard links don't even work anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two kinds of sources we use in Wikipedia. One kind is the sources used to establish notability: Significant (e.g. being on a song chart) coverage in reliable sources (it has to be a reliable chart, e.g. Billboard) independent of the subject. Once notability is established, we are free to use other sources, such as self published sources, including the artist’s personal web page or Discogs to flesh out an article (as long as the claims are non-controversial). The purpose of the notability guidelines is to protect the Wikipedia from self promotion, hoaxes, and from articles which are not helpful to people browsing the Wikipedia. With musicians, the question is: Does anyone care about this musician’s music? If they did chart, then, yes, people have cared enough about the artist’s music that they merit a Wikipedia article. WP:NMUSIC is just as authoritative as WP:GNG; both are notability guidelines. There is no contradiction between the two; WP:NMUSIC just clarifies that having a song or album chart is significant coverage in and of itself. Samboy (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Once notability is established, we are free to use other sources", Per WP:NMUSIC "If the subject is not notable in the music guidelines" section. "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any subject that, despite the person meeting the rules of thumb described above, for which editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the subject. Wikipedia's goals include neither tiny articles that can never be expanded, nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves." That sounds pretty cut and dry to me that it's not just about notability due to charting, and that if in-depth coverage isn't also available there shouldn't be an article about the person. I don't see how the guideline I quoted can be any clearer about it. You can't just forgo in-depth coverage because the person had a few hits. Let alone say we can flesh out the article some other time if we wan't to, but that the in-depth coverage thing is somehow secondary to notability from charting or not relevant. No where in the guidelines does it say that. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A legitimate full Wikipedia article can be based primarily on the artist charting multiple times, when and where the songs charted, and their peak position. Even if the article will be reasonably short then based on entirely independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage (i.e. they charted) of the subject, it will be long enough to be a full Wiki article, since the Wikipedia does not have a set minimum length for a full article. We can use self published sources to flesh it out, as desired. The question we ask here is not “Can we make an article 500 words or longer using only reliable independent third party non-trivial mentions?”, the question we ask here is “Did the subject get independent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources?” Since this artist charted, and since we have established that charting is non-trivial coverage (as per WP:NMUSIC), this artist should have a Wikipedia entry. The argument being presented here that this artist is somehow not notable only makes sense if the page WP:NMUSIC did not exist. Samboy (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your making it a black and white thing, where there's either notability or there isn't, when it's not one. The question isn't is if the artist is just "notable", it's if they are notable and have in-depth coverage. Your ignoring that both are required per WP:NMUSIC. Which you keep citing. You can't just cherry pick standards from WP:NMUSIC when it suites you but ignore them when it doesn't. So where's the in-depth coverage required by WP:NMUSIC the artist to have their own article? A chart might be "notable", but it's also trivial. Which 100% matters. A chart should be taken as a standard of notability yes, but not the only standard. No single source should. If it was a company article one mention in the Wallstreet journal isn't enough. It has to be taken as a part of whole. That's why it's reliable "sources." It would be ridiculous to say coverage doesn't matter simply because the artist charted. Especially because WP:NMUSIC says it does. No does it say "see if the artist charted and then call it good and stop there." As far as WP:STUBDEF, it says "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." So stubs are deleted based on them having little information and I'd assume this is the place it would happen at. Per the AfD page, "(AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." That's it. Articles that lack in-depth coverage are AfDed, discussed here, and deleted because of those discussions all the time. So, I'm not sure what your talking about that AfD's aren't for "that." With music related articles it would be be ridiculous to not discuss the lack of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources if it doesn't exist because then they would never be deleted based on that standard. In this case, if we keep the article simply because the subject charted, without also considering it's lack of in-depth, realistically we can't do another AfD for lack of in-depth coverage later. There's nothing making music related articles exempt from it. Charting ones or not. WP:NMUSIC states in-depth coverage matters, WP:STUBDEF says articles containing little information can be deleted, and we discuss it here all the time. So, I really don't get what your arguing about or what your point is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating yourself and making the same points over and over. Are you unable to let someone else have the last word on a subject? I won’t waste the closing admin’s time by repeating myself again. Samboy (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like you didn't repeat yourself or your not letting someone else have the last word by your last two messages, but that's cool. Whatever you say. You clearly have no other argument and your obviously unable to actually respond to what I said. Btw, my point about lack of in-depth coverage being completely valid grounds for an AfD wasn't repeating myself and it was like half the comment. It's obvious you have no response to it though. So this conversation is a massive waste of my time and I'm done with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple charting singles and WP:NMUSIC. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above, WP:NMUSIC says charting singles don't over ride in-depth coverage and this subject lacks it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets NMUSIC easily. This is a pre-internet topic, and country music magazines from this era have not been indexed, in general. Brief, but verifiable encyclopedic information about the topic is included, and I don't see an improvement by removing the material. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Anandram Jaipuria School Lucknow

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

A non notable school. As per the new rules of Notability, schools do not automatically qualify as notable. Daiyusha (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep One of the 12 independent references refers to teachers winning national awards. The text itself refers to the regional grouping that the headteacher leads. Each would be a GNG pass. Now as to the nomination, this is a bland statement (erroneous) that is unsourced and does not give detailed links to the school in question. It is vexatious and doesnot AGF. ClemRutter (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter:The principal of another school under the same parent organization, won an award(Seth Anandram Jaipuria School, Ghaziabad while the article is about a school in lucknow), even if she had won it while working at this school,would that be enough to make the entire school notable? Most references are about the parent organization of this school, as things stand this particular institution doesn't really have anything in favor of it. Daiyusha (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly is not how I view it. The standard of writing is not yet good, but the referencing tells another story about its importance. The schools website is unusual as it gives sources to claims that it makes. It suffers from the common Indian problem of having multiple spellings in English for transcription from Hindi. From the website we have full details of the Indian Education system. This is the first of the chain of private schools. This is a school that is frequently noted (our definition of notable). If you have time, would you like to talk WP:WPSCH group on what you think the baseline information necessary for an Indian school so we can discuss it.

ClemRutter (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: IMO a notable school usually has these traits , a good chunk of their alumni should be notable, should have regularly been featured in newspapers for 'multiple' events, even if it is for just calling an important person as the chief guest for a school level event. I did a little more digging into this, what i noticed is that the school's references are mainly about

1. The Lucknow school invited the Chief minister(basically the head of that state, equivalent to governor in the US) of its state to the lucknow branch's inauguration ceremony.

https://news.franchiseindia.com/content/Seth-Anandram-Jaipuria-School-Lucknow-branch-inaugurated.n13144 - this article alone proves that the Jaipuria group is 111 years old, the lucknow branch was set up in 2016. The school website says that the education division started in 1992. So obviously this article is notabout the first school in the chain.

2. The parent organization thinking of investing more.

3. An article about the principal of the Ghaziabad branch(a different city, more than 500 km away from lucknow), winning a national award.

4. A general local news article about how students of Lucknow scored well in the High school exams in their state's education board, (lucknow is the capital and the largest city in its state btw). This school had one student among a list of about 20 students.

5. Articles in non-notable, possibly non-independent sources about events conducted by the school.

My personal opinion about the school is that it is one of the better private schools with good facilities and a place where affluent parents send their kids, not necessarily millionaire kids, just people in a good job. It is connected to a big group, and so has had good investment done into it, compared to the rest of the schools in the city. Regarding the website though, as an Indian myself, I see a general trend about "digital marketing" gaining traction in India, with cheaper internet, and a large pool of Software developers, willing to make a website for you for cheap,promote your site on Google using SEO, writing articles on Social media and unfortunately wikipedia as well. Most schools now have a website now, and many even offer references.

Daiyusha (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what is going on here.Here is a List of schools, the page we are discussing is about the 1992 founded campus at Gomti Nagal, but it confuses the school with the trust and with other campuses in Lucknow. The website given is for the Shaheed Path school.Using the model we have to use in England to discuss multi-academy trusts and the academies that they control/assist. I would propose that we need an article on the trust which I believe we have: Seth M.R. Jaipuria Schools Now each of the 10 2 schools needs an article- or we need to have a [[List of Jaipuria schools which can hold the details until they can be spun off.

Almost every school is notable if you are into education, or architecture or community development- though to the outsider it us just a boring box. Changing the notability of secondary school was an uninformed decision. The reason the school were presumed to be notable was that, every time that a schools notability had been challenged the decision was reached that it did pass GNG umless they were tiny fly be night places. This blanket 'schools are not inherently notable' has not changed a thing- it just occupies editors in unnecessarily repeating the same arguments when they could be doing something more useful. But it does have the effect of biasing the articles we publish towards schools for the rich! Here in the UK, we find some editors only write about the private schools that are attended by the richest 5%.

We do need a lot effort to sort out Schools in India. Even our infobox fails us not having the necessary fields for exam boards school number etc. The websites are interesting, a lot of Wordpress but some schools in the chain seem to have a different unified approach that I haven't investgated. Lucknow does seem to be well covered. It would be good to get this sorted and on a firmer footing. ClemRutter (talk) 18:17, 25 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 04:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as per this Rfc[1] and WP:ORG, this school does not meet the notability threshold. Most of these sources are run of the mill and syndicated news from its parent organiztion, Jaipuria Group. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Schools are notable in general. Improvement is needed though. Otinflewer (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until my previous comments have been addressed I am not an editor that repeats blanket mantras. I have considered this Rfc[2] and lay great store on the two caveats:

References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD.
Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations.

Now GNG says

Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.

The page WP:ORG does not seem to exist anymore so until it is rewritten and restored (commented on and edited) so it is no longer an option.

This AfD appears indiscriminate, and indications are made in the text and the school website that Reliable Sources do exist. South Asia is outside my comfort zone, and so is North America where I try not to make judgements about notability- I realise my perceptions will be different from a local. The same applies here and if Wikipedia wishes to be a global encyclopedia we need to be very careful not to be WASPish. ClemRutter (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Whether to also create a (probably protected) redirect can be decided separately. Sandstein 21:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic chess

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

Chess variant, there appears to be heavy COI editing both on the main page and in the talk archives, including what appears to be some kind of legal threat. This page is subject to intense edit warring, consensus is needed as to whether this should be kept or deleted. My view is to delete main and all subpages/talk, then redirect to Capablanca chess. I am also nominating the following related pages because it appears to be a fork/mirror article:

Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This article is a magnet for contentious edits including legal threats. As per what I wrote back in 2016, here are the sources which mention Gothic Chess:

http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/gothicchess.html This was a five sentence mention back in 2009. It's now a fairly long write up, with an entire section about the expired patent. Is this a reliable source?
There are four Chessville links in the archives, but the domain was bought by a cybersquatter, so the source was not reliable: http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/ComputerWorldChampionships.htm http://www.chessville.com/gothicchess/gothicchessintro.htm http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/miniatures.htm http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/TacticalArtwork.htm (These links are not available at archive.org, but archive.is [with the codes dQHm 1az3z HtOE1 and nFVqQ] has them; all of the articles were written by Gothic Chess's inventor, so they are not third party sources)
There were two mentions in local newspapers which are currently only available in the web archive (and archive.is with the codes 4L2vd and NzMH2): 1) http://web.archive.org/web/20080129132825/http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080119_Fischer_started_reign_with_a_win_in_Phila_.html This is a one sentence mention 2) http://web.archive.org/web/20081204111208/http://www.nypost.com/seven/10292006/entertainment/bobby__tolya_may_be_game_for_gothic_entertainment_andy_soltis.htm This is a fairly long mention of Gothic Chess in a questionable source, about four paragraphs long -- however, it only used Gothic Chess's inventor as a source, since there is no independent source which verified the inventor's supposed meeting with Bobby Fischer or the financial backing this match supposedly had.
The inventor of Gothic Chess did write an article about it in an academic journal: Trice E (Dec 2004). "The 2004 Gothic Chess Computer World Championship". ICGA Journal. 27 (4): 249–54. This isn't a third-party source independent of the subject.
There was a lot of noise about it on various discussion boards online, mainly threads started by the inventor. I will leave only one example: http://www.chessatwork.com/forum/only-chess/fischer-v-karpov.54078/page-5 shows the Gothic Chess inventor making an unverified claim that over 5,000 people went to a Gothic Chess tournament in 2005; the discussion quickly degenerated and by page 10 said Gothic Chess inventor was making legal threats. This claim, and all other online forum discussion of Gothic Chess, does not constitute information coming from a reliable source.

So, the only third party reliable sources we had were a passing mention in one local newspaper article, and a four paragraph mention in another article from a questionable source. I don't think that's enough to keep an article here -- but I also think it deserves a passing mention in the Capablanca Chess article.

Also, as a warning, based on the editing patterns this article has had: Do not attempt to use sockpuppet accounts to stack the vote If there are lot of keep votes come from suspiciously similar accounts, I (or someone else) will request a sockpuppet investigation. Just to clarify (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt The chess variation doesn't seem notable enough for its own. and it's already mentioned on a chess variations article. Which seems like enough. Plus, there's the whole article recreation, edit warring, and threats thing. Which doesn't bode well for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Capablanca chess (this has basically been the case for a while if one disregards the periodic redirect wars). Pichpich (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Aberg

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

Notable only for his involvement in an unreleased Warhol film. I considered redirect or merge, but there is really not much to report here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even close to notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching online I could not find anything to substantiate notability per our guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when half the sources are birth or death certificates the article is built too much on primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny van der Tuuk

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

Non notable cyclist. Has no results that warrant an article, fails WP:NCYC. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. Whoever created the article probably thought he was through association of his brother. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Kooij

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

Non notable cyclist. Only results are as a junior, which fails WP:NCYC. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable cyclist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NCYC or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathina Siva

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

Undersourced director who fails to establish notability. This director has directed two films - none of which have received rave reviews. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Films don't have to have rave reviews, i.e. films don't have to be notably good, they can be notably bad and qualify to have an article on Wikipedia (WP:DIDNOTWIN). Two full reviews from nationally well known critics panning a film are enough to establish notability (or infamy!). The requirement is simply notability. If no critics have deigned to write a review of these films, they are probably not notable, however, notability can be achieved in other ways (WP:NFO). See Ed Wood for an example of a notably bad film director. --Danielklein (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one reliable source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one source given and that too is a bare url. The subject falls into WP:TOOSOON category as similar to this Afd on Rajath Ravishankar. Abishe (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yvick Letexier

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

Single-sourced article about a YouTuber, not making any credible claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The closest thing to an actual notability claim here is somebody else's, not his own — "Le Velcrou" are other people he collaborated with once or twice, and not a group he was a member or founder of, so the source for it completely fails to mention Yvick Letexier (either under his real name or his stage name) at all, and that's the only source present here. As always, YouTubers do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their self-published content exists -- just like for all other domains of human activity, the notability test for YouTubers is the reception of reliable source coverage about him in real media, not just the existence of his YouTube channel. And even the French article, as long as it is, is also semi-advertorialized and relying far too heavily on bad sources like Spotify and YouTube rather than real media -- so it should really be deleted there as well, and just translating it into English without completely overhauling its sourcing isn't the golden ticket to a notability pass here. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search found multiple notable sources - albeit in French, which is not an issue to meeting GNG. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. There are plenty more if you look on Google. Please do due diligence before going to AFD immediately. Thanks! Affied (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As reluctant as I am to further ballooning "Youtuber" Wikipedia biographies, he does appear to meet SIGCOV. The article creator should've done a better job with sourcing, there's no doubt about that! PK650 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, With the sources found above by Affied, this meets WP:GNG. The article still needs work, but I added a few of the sources, so at least now it has a couple of references. Ym2X (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely meets WP:GNG. He has also just scored a number-one album in France as Mister V [3]. Ss112 13:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Echoing the comments of the other editors above, the subject certainly seems to meet the significant coverage requirement. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It could use some expansion. --evrik ^(talk) 16:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Kisan Sangh

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

All sources are routine coverages. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ 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 lacks non promo content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. minor passing mentions as WP:NOTNEWS type coverage don't help with the notability.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

based on the sources, it is better to merge this with its party BJP or Sangh Parivar--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search from the term "Bharatiya Kisan Sangh" and "भारतीय किसान संघ" gives 188000 and 3420000 results respectively. I can find numerous references in reliable sources such as 1, Coverage in Hindi Press - 2. 3, 4, 5, Coverage in English Press - 6, 7, 8, Razer(talk) 17:29, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS. FYI Taimur Ali Khan has 1 million hits and yet we have deleted Taimur Ali Khan for now.

Talking about the refs.

1, 2. are passing mentions.

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are all WP:NOTNEWS type coverage in paper about some protest or incident. The bars of WP:ORGCRIT are much higher, and none of these meet the criteria for individual notability.DBig Xrayᗙ 18:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most likely promotional, does not pass WP:GNG. Could potentially have been created by BJP's promotional editing staff which seems to be active on wikipedia. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, BKS is a multi-million member organization with nation-wide coverage. If you have concerns over the contents of the article, edit. AfD is not the place to address content issues. --Soman (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article's subject is major group of farmers in India. Reliable sources available. GargAvinash (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Soman I have concern with the notability and thats why I am here. Soman and GargAvinash, If this WP:ORG is indeed so notable to have its own article, then it should be easy to show how it passes the WP:ORGCRIT (which is a higher bar than GNG for Orgs). Without hard evidence stating WP:Clearly notable and WP:Assertion don't really help the AfD. Not a single source has been shown so far that passes the criteria while WP:ORGCRIT requires multiple sources. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray. I have not just voted, I have explained why I am willing to keep this article. Also, this article follows WP:ORGCRIT. GargAvinash (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GargAvinash, without hard evidence in the form of refs and explanation why exactly that particular ref passes ORGCRIT your comment is nothing more than WP:Assertion and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. And it doesn't hold weight. DBig Xrayᗙ 09:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference provided in article and in this page all point towards them failing WP:ORG. The coverage is of a "trivial" nature as per the guidelines. It is affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh which is a notable organisation and by that account receives some coverage. That also potentially brings it under the purview of WP:BRANCH and therefore a merge.

Bharatiya Kisan Sangh translates to Indian Farmers Collective, and therefore WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't a very strong argument for it. Results in Hindi are usually either about "Indian Farmers", "Indian Collectives" or "Farmers Collectives". I tried digging into a bit some time ago and it seems there is a wide lack of any sources for it to make a comprehensive article out of it. Basic facts regarding it are hard to come by.

In instances, it is masquerading as the Bharatiya Kisan Union which is notable for which there wasn't an article until recently. In 1, 2 for instance, it is not even clear if the BKS refereed to is same as the one in the article (There is a single line stating the existence of a BKS in Gujarat in the 70s-80s), they refer to an BKS-G for which there is a missing link to the BKS in the news sources. Even if they are the same, it seems pretty impossible for it be established properly which means it would fail WP:GNG per WP:NRVE. 3 is another problematic one, since it does not even mention a Bharatiya Kisan Sangh but rather just Kisan Sangh (The English link to which is given as "Farmers Union"). Tayi Arajakate (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation is notable enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Organisation has received multiple coverages and organisation routinely opposes the present regime of India. Organisation has mentions in multiple books even.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bring to attention the point that the the article is almost doomed to be a WP:PERMASTUB. For instance, I could not find any the date of its foundation anywhere other than on its website, which wouldn't qualify WP:NOR. There is no information regarding its organisation and activities to create a comprehensive article out of. Per WP:POTENTIAL, there isn't much more to add other than from relatively infrequent coverage in the vein of "it did something" from news sources which I don't think pass WP:NOTNEWS. Its stances in many of the news source are more or less presented as the stance of the RSS therefore a Merge or at least a Draftify seem more appropriate for it if something can be made out of it at all. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not factually correct. There is defintely potential to make a good article here, the WP:PERMASTUB claim isn't valid. And as for WP:NOTNEWS, this is clearly not a organization known only for a single event. --Soman (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Tayi Arajakate:, the article is now expanded well beyond stub size, with 24 sources (mainly from google books). Whilst the article is far from complete, it is clearly not a permastub. There is clearly more expansion possible, to go in the role of BKS in policy during the BJP governments, for example. --Soman (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take back my previous objections. There does seem to be enough material from scholarly sources (which I wasn't aware of previously) to make a comprehensive article out of. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayi Arajakate, may I know which sources are you basing your opinion on. if there are sources that prove this to be independently notable (independent of Sangh Parivar) then you should share it on the AfD. DBig Xrayᗙ 21:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray The The Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. has a brief section on it, Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. has a paragraph highlighting it. It also finds mention in numerous other books. The books sources are independent of the Sangh Parivar. The organisation is not though and usually is in context of it which I'd suppose qualifies it more for a Merge. They are however informative enough to produce a comprehensive article on it which is why I've retracted by WP:PERMASTUB objection. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sangh Parivar is not an organization, but an informal umbrella of like-minded movements. Each constituent of the Parivar is a distinct organization, so WP:MERGE is not a good option. As shown in the article BKS is not entirely subordinate neither to BJP nor RSS, but a notable organization with a role of its own. The article is now well-referenced and expanded. --Soman (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray, reviewing your arguments for the delete vote, I find essentially three points of argumentation

Points from DBigXray's delete vote	Comment from Soman
Lack of significant independent coverage ("A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. [...] minor passing mentions as WP:NOTNEWS type coverage don't help with the notability.)"	Wouldn't this: [4] pass as 'independent coverage in reliable media', where BKS is the main subject of an article in one of the largest English-language publications in India? Or this: [5] and [6] from Times of India. There is clearly much more to fish up, but in order to keep the AfD short I'll leave at that for now.
Lack of non PROMO materials ("This subset of a political party is not independently notable and lacks non promo content to expand.")	Could you highlight which passages in the current article that are WP:PROMO? The article is current well beyond stub size, with 26 references, mainly from scholarly sources.
Intent of PROMO ("Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers.")	If you look at the early versions of the article, from 2007-2008, where are the proof that the article had been created for promotional purpose? Did you study the edit history before making this accusation?

Some clarity on this would be appreciated. --Soman (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, The [link 1] is covering the opposition to Genetically modified seeds. [link2] is covering some protest and [link 3] again is on some protest and includes interviews and press releases of this organisation. Such articles are not considered for notability. These events are WP:ROUTINE coverage by newspapers. We would need multiple independent articles that covers BKS at its main subject talks about its history, organisation structure and other details that are needed in its encyclopedia article. This AfD is only to discuss the notability of the topic, raise other things on article talk.DBig Xrayᗙ 14:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic discussion

- DBigXray, in order to move forward: 1) You cannot use WP:ROUTINE as a reference in AfD discussions, unless the article discussed is an event. 2) Since no media coverage presented by any other editor than yourself seems to fulfill your standards for significant independent coverage in reliable media, could you provide a single example on any subject of significant independent coverage in reliable media? --Soman (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Soman, If you dont want me to use WP:ROUTINE, then may be consider not using news articles that are merely covering an event that is routine, to prove notability in AfDs. WP:N demands significant coverage and not coverage of events. take a look at the AdvanSix and its AfDs, to understand what is needed. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  So in terms of 'routine coverage' (as opposed to reference to WP:ROUTINE), what's so special about the refences in AdvanSix? In the article there is only a single reference, on a routine spin-off of part of their enterprise (companies do this all the time), which only mentions 'AdvanSix' as an entity that is presume to come into existence in the future. Likewise, from the AfD discussion, the Forbes article is written in speculation of that the company would be launched. The Yahoo! Finance article deals with an investigation has been closed down (happens all the time around the world), By comparison, the references used in the BKS article, talking about the struggles of the farmers in the 1980s on events that affected the lifes of millions people (by affecting electricty price policies of different state governments). --Soman (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally if the topic is notable there will be several books/ entire chapters/exclusive articles written over it. If it is so hard for you to find articles whose subject is the the topic of the AfDs then it is a sign that the topic does not deserves an independent article. It should be merged with its parent org or may even be deleted. If the mainstream media does not consider a topic important enough to dedicate an entire article on the topic, then why should wikipedia have such an article ? Again this is off topic discussion, move this to your user talk. DBig Xrayᗙ 19:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/bharatiya-kisan-sangh-opposes-gm-tech-in-oilseeds/article29360411.ece the topic isn't GMOs in general. The topic is the position of BKS on GMOs, i.e. it is an article covering BKS. Thus it is a prime example of coverage of BKS in reliable, notable, independent media. --Soman (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soman, No. That article is covering GM seeds and opposition to it by BKS as the main topic. The article includes statements of the office bearers. If we are discussing a hypothetical wiki article about "Opposition to GM seeds by BKS", or "Opposition to GM seeds" then this news article might have been useful. not for BKS. Please move this thread to your user talk and continue there. DBig Xrayᗙ 19:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Soman. AfD is not for content issues. Lepricavark (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, quote from Social Movements in India: Poverty, Power, and Politics: "The official farmers' organizations of the political parties (most important of these have been the Kisan Sabhas of the CPI and CPM, and the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) of the BJP. [...] It might be noted that the BKS has been emerging as the most effective and largest of these party— linked organizations (just as the BMS is now the largest trade union..." --Soman (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus to keep this. This close does not prevent large content changes nor would it prevent editors from choosing to merge this selectively into the main article. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Blacklist characters

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

Some of the characters on this list may be notable, but most are not. Much of this article is a plot summary of the TV series. Natg 19 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the parent article. What is an appropriate level of detail for coverage here is a matter for editing to determine, not deletion (i.e., a scalpel, not a wrecking ball), as is whether and how many nonnotable characters should be listed. Including nonnotable entries is in no way grounds for deletion in this kind of list, btw. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An additional issue is that this list type article is mostly unsourced, and is original research of biographies of the characters. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Blacklist (TV series)#Cast and characters. Since no reliable sources have covered these characters as a group, with most references being either trivial in-universe information or coverage unrelated to the actual characters, this article fails WP:LISTN. Since none of the characters in this list are independently notable, it serves no navigational purpose. The fancruft in this article is so extreme it would probably qualify for a WP:TNT delete regardless. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - list of subjects of a notable topic don't need to be notable by themselves as WP:NLISTITEM says The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists. If this were in the parent category you'd have no valid argument. The only reason this is in a different article is because of WP:SPLIT. Some editors, including some here, keep thinking that a) all entries in a list need to be notable, which is the exact opposite of what are guidelines actually say and b) that these need to be notable as a group, which is also incorrect, see my first point. --Gonnym (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLISTITEM specifically applies to content within an article, as this is a seperate article LISTITEM does not apply. What does apply here is the policy of WP:NLIST which states in the first sentence “Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of standalone lists or tables”. The only exception to this would be if members of the list were independently notable, but they are not. A seperate article is a seperate article, and this level of in-universe information should not be in any article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The only exception..." No, the guidelines do not say that. Nor is NLIST a policy, nor is satisfying it a requirement. postdlf (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would be great if you actually understood the guidelines you cite. If you talk about stand alone lists, you should check WP:STANDALONE and specifically read WP:CSC (notice how they give a list of characters as an example): Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of criteria: [...] Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.). Then re-read my argument which said that these lists are part of the main article, but because of WP:SPLIT are split into a separate article. --Gonnym (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highly selective merge into The Blacklist (TV series)#Cast and characters. The overwhelming majority of this article is irredeemable cruft, but there is probably a small amount of sourced content that could be salvaged and would be useful at the target article. We definitely don't keep huge sprawling unsourced crufty lists of characters just because they are lists of characters. Reyk _YO! 12:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article to allow others to merge if they wish. I don't think character lists are inherently necessary splits. They're just convenient, and then they become like this. TTN (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I fully agree with nom's NOTPLOT concerns, but (1) this is a show with 7 seasons where I actually expect that a decent stand-alone character list can be written, and (2) it is such a pain to reduce the number of crufty stand-alone character articles, that one crufty hold-it-all character list is not a real concern to me. Better encourage one crufty stand-lone list with potential than 10 crufty stand-alone main character articles, or people will be even more reluctant to support a merger when they learn that the LoC runs a high chance of getting deleted down the road. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a considerable amount of significant coverage in reliable sources for many of these characters; the article itself simply needs some maintenance. The nom writes "some of the characters on this list may be notable, but most are not", which to me is more of an argument for article improvement and not deletion. If some characters need to be removed from the list, that can occur via talk page discussions or over the course of edits to the article... — Hunter Kahn 03:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTN: Notability is not determined by the current state of the article, even if it's currently poorly written and badly sourced. I agree with Postdlf that this is a matter for a scalpel, not a wrecking ball; if people in this discussion are concerned about the writing in this article, then they should make positive edits to improve it. Sgeureka points out in his Neutral comment above that if character lists like this are deleted, then it would make people less likely to support merging individual character pages into a character list like this. I agree, and I think the practice of merging individual pages into a list and then deleting the list should be discouraged. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Redirect Pure fancruft and FANDOM material. I do not see how the non "wrecking ball" approach is justified when the article is almost entirely WP:OR. No original research is one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis do you claim that it's OR? postdlf (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – cut the cruft, remove non-notable characters (with a discussion on talk), but delete a list when it can be improved? I don't think so. Keep per WP:ARTN. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 21:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prananath College (Autonomous), Khordha

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

I could not locate any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. b uidhe 03:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 03:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 03:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William L. "Bill" Effinger Jr.

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

This is an orphan with little prospect of being anything else. All sources discussing him do so as a namecheck in relation to Berkeley Models. The title is very specific and probably not useful as a redirect. Guy (help!) 10:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. the wub "?!" 13:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Himalayan Times

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

Non-notable newspaper. The situation isn't helped by historical newspapers of the same name (Such as one distributed in West Bengal from 1947 on ^[1] ) I attempted to do WP:BEFORE in this case but as this is the first time I've had to do it for a newspaper I don't know what string to use to even begin to look for sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 05:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Viehbeck, Markus (2017). Transcultural Encounters in the Himalayan Borderlands: Kalimpong as a "Contact Zone". Heidelberg University Publishing. p. 132. ISBN 978-3946054580.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I can't fault the nom going by the state the article is in. But it's one of the premier English papers published in Nepal. Unfortunately, I am unable to try and improve the article right now but I would assure anyone willing to take the time to try that this is a topic that we should absolutely keep. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have sources in order to keep this; what is in the article at present doesn't come close to cutting it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 06:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WorldCat, The Himalayan Times is held by over 500 libraries. A Google search in Nepali also reveals that reports from The Himalayan Times are cited in other major newspapers, e.g., the Hindustan ([7]), Punjab Kesari ([8][9]), and Rajasthan Patrika ([10]). This seems sufficient to pass criterion 4 of WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals. FWIW, The Himalayan Times is also cited frequently on Wikipedia—just take a look at its incoming links. Even if this article is never as extensive as our articles on The New York Times or The Washington Post, deleting it would be a disservice to our readers who want to find out some basic info about the newspaper, such as its city of publication or year of establishment. For a newspaper the size of The Himalayan Times, I think it's likely that a few Nepalese sources could be found that describe the paper's history or impact. If a through WP:BEFORE in Nepalese sources turns up no independent coverage of the paper whatsoever, I'd be willing to reconsider my !vote; however, I think that the paper's impact, as demonstrated by the library holdings and citations in other sources, is enough to presume notability per WP:NMEDIA. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily one of the top-ranked English-language daily newspapers in Nepal. A Google search of newspapers of Nepal turns up multiple hits regarding significance.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source has some useful bits. The publisher and the author are both RSes and no connection is immediately apparent. This one is also SIGCOV. It chronicles how the paper approached journalism when press freedom was under attack following the King's coup when the paper was relatively young. I don't know how useful it is to expand the article, but it adds to notability and at least names the then editor-in-chief which could help in building the history section. This says THT was ranked at the top tier of Nepalese print media based on quality. This factchecker says THT is one of the major national dailies and tracks quality of its reporting. I found a few other reports on THT's coverage quality, and a few Nepali sources that can add a sentence or a clause each. I think any book on history of Nepalese journalism published in the last decade should have enough SIGCOV, someone should try to find it.
It's likely in the top 3 of Nepal-related sources routinely used in Wikipedia and it is in the top 2 among English dailies in Nepal. Its competitors are not likely to write routine positive news about it and what it writes about itself would not add to notability. So, it's a tough ask to try and establish GNG with online sources which have almost no archives and older urls seem to get overwritten within a few years. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well regarded among foreign correspondents writing for major newspapers in the region and the definitive source for news in Nepal. Although somewhat arbitrary, a cursory look at its audience / reach on social media shows the HT has a major presence: both twitter followers and facebook likes reach over 90k. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD is not cleanup. -- Visviva (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Jo Hendrix

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

Hendrix does not meet the inclusion criteria for actresses. None of her roles were in notable productions John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. All I could find were actor listings; no actual coverage. PK650 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I don't like to give this vote, because the subject has starred in a number of films (of low-to-moderate notability), but I really can't seem to find any significant coverage on her. If someone else is able to find some good sources, I will certainly consider updating my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wray

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

Seems to be an unremarkable WP:BLP. Searching for "Peter Wray" and "Phnom Penh Post" only brings back mirrors of this page. The page was prod'd and then sent to AfD thirteen years ago (!) but was kept on a technicality. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage by others of his works to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breach and clear

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

Door breaching and Close-quarters combat already cover the topic of this article. I would also oppose merging this to the abovementioned articles, as none of this article's content is sourced, and adding unsourced content to articles should be avoided. No sources discussing the article's topic can be easily found, either, as all of the results for a Google search for the term "Breach and clear" discuss the video game Breach & Clear, rather than the assault tactic. Not a very active user (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be entirely WP:OR, and the term fails GNG. I have just created Breach and Clear to catch people searching for the game without the "&" symbol, so this article is unnecessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ZXCVBNM. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mummy (undead). Worthwhile content, if any, can be merged from history. Sandstein 21:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

The non-notable D&D variant of a mummy. Nearly all of the sources are primary game books and magazines. The only source being used that is not is a review of the Monster Manual as a whole, which is not significant coverage. Searching for additional soruces, the only secondary sources I'm finding is "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" which, as usual, is just a game-guide describing their stats exactly as they appear in the game and do not contribute to establishing notability. The article was kept in a AFD a decade ago, using arguments that would not fly today, such as that sources probably exist somewhere, or the even more bizarre argument that D&D mummies are somehow the only version people have heard of. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE, wikipedia is not a game guide and this is not notable outside of the guide. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already mentioned in Mummy (monster) and that is enough. The article is fancruft that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Mummy (monster) as similar subject matter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would you merge, that is not already there? Or do you mean the page should redirect to there? Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expand the mention a bit on the latter page as it has been a D&D monster through 5 editions and 40 years. Not a huge bit but not nothing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DnD cruft, hopefully this year we can de-MonsterManual Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Cas Liber. The corresponding part in Mummy (monster) is still missing the sources present here, and that way the history is preserved for potential future use. Daranios (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. a7'd by TonyBallioni (non-admin closure) Praxidicae (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GOTH

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

Can't find virtually anything on this. No sources in the current article. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely this qualifies for speedy deletion, there's no assertion of notability. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:43, 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 merge to Tottenham Hale station. We have only one keep that opposes the merge. Bookscale's weak keep mentions merge as a second choice. Since we have two straight merge arguments and two straight delete arguments, consensus not to keep as a standalone seems clear, and merging is the best-supported WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hale bus station

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

Non-notable bus station. This bus station only has four bus stands and is served by eight bus routes. There is nothing remarkable about this article or any notability to justify keeping this article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly a bus station, is more of an area outside the underground station where buses stop. Ajf773 (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been redeveloped considerably since the photo in the article was taken.----Pontificalibus 09:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tottenham Hale station as it's a significant combined transport interchange, but I haven't found in-depth coverage specifically of the bus station part.----Pontificalibus 09:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems comparatively well-referenced for a bus station stub. Since Tottenham Hale station doesn't mention anything currently about buses I'm a bit dubious about the merge proposal. Mujinga (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: It wasn't well referenced when I nominated it for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not very well referenced now either. There is not much coverage or notability for a bus station. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to have some sources for notability (which a bus interchange would normally have very little). I'll err on the side of caution and keep. I do not support deletion - the merge to the station article is a viable alternative that should be considered first if consensus is not to keep the article. Bookscale (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tottenham Hale station. Not worth a standalone article and is integral to the station.Charles (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:36, 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. A very poor discussion. All comments except the nominator's must essentially be disregarded (pure vote / attack on subject / does not address reasons for deletion / obvious canvassing or meatpuppetry). So it's best to treat this as a slightly soft deletion, i.e., undeletion via WP:REFUND is possible, but should only be requested by experienced editors who intend to edit the article to make its notability (if any) clear. Sandstein 21:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Thielen

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

Does not appear to be independently notable from his company Zebralution (WP:INHERITORG: "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not 'inherit' notability due to their membership"). Nominating for deletion as my redirecting to Zebralution was reverted.

The sources provided all pertain to Zebralution except for:

Two German language industry news articles which relate to his winning an award at the Frankfurt Book Fair for his and Zebralution's contribution to the audiobook industry. Google coverage of this appears to be light, to say the least, and there is no assertion nor do I believe that this qualifies as "a well-known and significant award or honor"

A link to Rough Trade Distribution GmbH, which proves his connection with the German distributor of that name (discogs.com) but not (as originally asserted in the article) the famous record label Rough Trade (discogs.com)

- kingboyk (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. End him. -- Dorama285 18:23, 05 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kurt Thielen is a senior figure in the German and European independent music scene, with merits dating back to a time long before Google (like working as CEO for the German branch of, yes, THE Rough Trade label from London). It shouldn't be to his fault that most of the 80s and 90s independant music publications and information is ephemera. Best, --Fact Loving Criminal (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Fact Loving Criminal (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. --kingboyk (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kurt Thielen is one of the key figures of the European audiobook industry. --JellySchnelli67 (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: JellySchnelli67 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to this AfD discussion. --kingboyk (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Credit where credit is due. (Why are you so obsessed about this, kingboyk?) --Jürgen Laarmann (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Coryat

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

Non notable person just plain and simple. This article just feels like it may have been written and or edited by someone with a close connection to this person. Pahiy (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the originator of this article (in 2012), I recuse myself from this discussion. However, let me point out a few things that might get missed:

1. In addition to the other references, the subject has been awarded two prizes[11][12] by a major international physics organization, the Foundational Questions Institute — one as a writer and one as a videomaker.

2. Over the past 90 days, this article has averaged 18 views per day, with a significant increase in January, peaking at 91 on January 15.[13] By comparison, for the 20 most recent author-related AfDs that ended in "Keep," that number averages 7.95 views per day. -Jordgette [talk] 18:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The new awards are minor. Much of the media coverage cited is about Jennings and other famous contestants, not Coryat. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Coryat score be considered "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"? (WP:ANYBIO) Although it's not an academic or professional field, Jeopardy is a specific field with a huge fanbase, and within that field, the Coryat score is widely recognized as a significant part of contestant statistics (enough to be cited by Atlantic, Wired, etc.). Coryat himself is mentioned in the first sentence of a Christian Science Monitor article on Jeopardy.[14] Here are three other RS references not included in the article: Fivethirtyeight [15], Chicago Tribune [16], Slate [17]. -Jordgette [talk] 19:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is tricky, because he doesn't have major notability in one area, but minor notability across multiple areas. Taken on the whole, he is notable for the number and quality (and diversity) of the sources, and because a Google search turns up endless references to the "Coryat score" among enthusiasts of that universe. PorkHeart (talk) 04:16, 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) 15:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree a SIGCOV argument would be quite weak, unless there's someone who can round up sources from back in the 90s newspapers. He is noted, however, for being the inspiration for the "Coryat score" (see this as an example, and many other articles). I think for this reason and its related coverage, at least a stub is appropriate or could very well be for the Coryat score itself. He's also the author of "The Frustrated Songwriter's Handbook", but I couldn't find any significant reviews for that book. PK650 (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the points raised by PorkHeart and PK650, he doesn't have SIGCOV but still he is notable to deserve a page. Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buurtpoes Bledder

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

Article does not meet WP:Notability, because it was just temporary media coverage of August 2013. --Noebse (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - I had a look through what sourcing was on the article, and it just and just doesn't quite meet WP:GNG in my eyes. There's no article on Bob the streetcat, just a redirect (and the article on the movie), which is probably the most famous cat I can think of (there are some items on Category:individual cats though, which should probably be looked through. There are articles in three other languages for this item, but I don't think it meets the English wikipedia definition of notability. There's clearly some press, but it borders on WP:1E (whilst not technically being an "event", it was WP:NOTNEWS.) I did a WP:BEFORE search, but I couldn't find much through wikidata or google, but if there were some offline sources or additional foriegn language sources I could be persuaded to change to keep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only online media coverage in Dutch. The German, Indonesian and Vietnamese articles rely on Dutch references. --Noebse (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is even less known than a similiar British cat. Social media star cat Garfield killed in Sainsbury's car park accident, who had 6,300 Facebook followers whereas the Dutch cat (which was the most famous cat of Leiden) had only 700 followers when it died. "Met 700 vrienden op Facebook mocht hij zich met recht de populairste kat van Leiden noemen. Ondernemers en caféhouders reageren dan ook diep bedroefd op de dood van het beestje." [18] --Noebse (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, the reason why there hasn't been much coverage over the past several years is because Buurtpoes Bledder died in 2013. Wikipedia is filled with countless articles about deceased individuals who are hardly media figures and don't receive coverage/attention in the year 2020. These individuals range from obscure judges in the US justice system to nearly forgotten authors and, yes, celebrity animals. Also: he has received coverage outside of 2013. There was a follow-up on what happened to his remains on the fifth anniversary of his death in 2018 and a segment that aired on Dutch television. I have added this information and the link to the article/segment. As such, this article should not be deleted. Constablequackers (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetsford (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete judges make rulings that have impact, cats do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Dutch article nl:Buurtpoes Bledder was speedied in July 2015 (nl:Sjabloon:Nuweg, equivalent to Template:Db). Narky Blert (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Buurtpoes article was worthy of being included in the "Did You Know?" column on Wikipedia's mainpage in 2013 and it includes more sources than many other pages on the site. The cat's photo is currently included on the page for the city of Leiden as well along with a link. Furthermore, the individual who nominated it for deletion (Noebse) has made minimal contributions to Wikipedia over the years and popped up out of nowhere after 10 months of no edits to go after it and has done nothing since. Rather curious behavior and rather cruel if you ask me, especially since he first opted for a speedy delete. Ultimately, yes, this is a silly topic for a Wikipedia page, but Wikipedia is filled with pages for topics that are far more ridiculous. Constablequackers (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, (probably another one by coola that is off topic:)) "There's no article on Bob the streetcat, just a redirect (and the article on the movie), which is probably the most famous cat I can think of..", sorry, but Lee Vilenski isnt thinking very hard, how about Chief Mouser Larry who, amongst his achievements, stopped the US President or Trim, the first cat to circumnavigate Australia? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even generally reliable sources like omroepwest.nl occasionally publish non-news because, well, they like to provide some light entertainment. Such topics a re not actually notable, but because we have a GNG that doesn't consider content, we now have an article on a subject that is "technically" notable, except it really isn't. Most of the sources are actually dead, broken links or Facebook. The best of the sources, omroepwest.nl is reporting that this "famous" cat even has it's own Wikipedia article. Now we have a Wikipedia article on a cat who is notable for having ... a Wikipedia article! The Dutch Wikipedans were sensible enough to delete their version of the article. We should do the same. Vexations (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
This page notes that (translation from Google Translate) "Bledder became known nationally after an article in De Telegraaf because he was the first cat with its own Facebook page." The page includes a photo of a lengthy newspaper article about the subject titled "Buurtpoes Bledder online" that was published in October 2012, 10 months before the subject's death.
SBS6's television program nl:Hart van Nederland covered the subject's August 2013 death in this article as did Algemeen Dagblad here (metadata here), Leidsch Dagblad here, and Omroep West here. This December 2013 article notes that Leidsch Dagblad declared "Buurtpoes" the word of the year in 2013 after the subject's death.
Five years after the subject's death, the subject was covered in this article in Omroep West. The article's first paragraph notes (translation from Google Translate): "Cat Bledder from Leiden has been dead for exactly five years. "Well," you would say. But that is different in Leiden. The cat made the national news before its death and has its own Wikipedia and Facebook page because half of Leiden knew the beast. Bledder has been set up and is being put down for a day in the Velvet record store on the Nieuwe Rijn so that people can stop and talk to him. Students from the house on the Hartesteeg where Bledder still lives, deliver him early Tuesday morning to record store Velvet." The article mentions that the cat made the national news before it died and mentions in passing that he has a Wikipedia page. (I do not consider this passing mention of the cat's having a Wikipedia page to detract from the article's contributing to Buurtpoes Bledder establishing notability since the rest of the article focuses on how the people of Leiden are still remembering the cat.)
That the subject was covered by reliable sources before, at, and after his death demonstrates he has received sustained coverage. That this coverage was in national and regional newspapers and radio stations strongly establishes he is notable.
Cunard (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eh. Would also qualify as WP:G11. Sandstein 21:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Psi Omega

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

No refs except the one to their main website, I just added, other than that, it has been here for 10 years... The description of Beta appears to be a copyvio. Only two chapters. Just not sure worth salvaging, would love to see arguments in favor of doing so. Naraht (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more than pure votes, Hyperbolick.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”Pure vote” means nominator provides all commentary needed. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell

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

The article's subject fails to to meet notability guidelines for events. The event was a motion passed by the Canadian Parliament in 2002 declaring Alexander Graham Bell to have been the inventor of the telephone. The motion was passed in response to a resolution of the US House or Representatives, also in 2002, crediting an Italian-American inventor with contributions to the invention, and implying that Bell may have used that inventor's work in his own design without credit. Neither the Canadian motion nor the US resolution had the force of law. Neither body is constitutionally empowered to make binding determinations on issues of this kind (i.e., which individual should get credit for a particular invention). Neither the motion nor the preceeding resolution were intended to produce any effect other than minor publicity. The publicity generated did not reach large numbers of people, nor address any contemporaneous issue of importance (the legal controversy over the invention of/patent on the telephone was terminated in the 19th Century). There is no indication that the legislative actors intended that their publicity-seeking motion could or would lead to the occurrence of some notable event, and indeed, it did not. Thus, while it is possible that acts taken for the purposes of publicity alone might conceivably be notable, that is not the case here. Thus, the article fails to meet the notability criterion WP:EFFECT. There was little coverage of the event. The event fails to meet the criterion WP:DEPTH. Coverage was limited to a short period immeidately around the event. The subject therefore fails to meet the criteria WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:PERSISTENCE. The Canadian Parliament is a notable body, but not everything it does is notable. The same is true of the US House of Representatives. For context, the US Congress (House plus Senate) routinely passes legislation naming pieces of federal property (bridges, office buildings, etc.) after individuals whom the Congress wishes to honor. These are pieces of legislation having force of law in the sense that the executive branch will be required to recognize the naming of the bridge (for example) with signage, in documents concerning the property, etc. Such legislation, although extremely inconsequential, is MORE consequential than the motion which is the subject of this article. It should be noted that much of the article is given to original interpretation/research, and to airing the views of non-independent sources such as Bell's grandson. David.thompson.esq (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and on a slow news day at that. Minor motion that had no effect on anything whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this does not appear to have any significant or lasting impact. It is already covered at (and can be reasonably expanded in) History_of_the_telephone#Invention_of_the_telephone, Invention_of_the_telephone#Antonio_Meucci, and Invention_of_the_telephone#Controversies without such undue weight and detail. Reywas92^Talk 01:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this does not appear to have any significant or lasting impact. Thousands of resolutions like this one are passed in Parliament, US CONGRESS and elsewhere without any result at all. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invention of the telephone#Controversies. The text of the resolution and Parliemtnary proceedings might go into wikisource. The views of the US congress and Canadian Parliament are mere expressions of opinion. They are not historians and may (or may not) have relied on reliable historical sources. The proceedings of the US patent office and US courts of the period would be proper sources for fact. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Feldman

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of an organizational founder and motivational speaker, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for either endeavour. This is heavily reference bombed to sources that are not support for notability at all, such as YouTube clips and his "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with and glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are primarily about other people and Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself or other things in the first person -- and the very few sources that actually represent reliable or notability-supporting media coverage about him are virtually all covering him in purely local interest contexts like organizing a local fundraising event and winning a local youth achievement award in his own hometown, which aren't notability-clinching accomplishments in and of themselves. As always, every founder of a charitable organization is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article -- the notability test is not the things the article says, but the depth and breadth and volume of media coverage about him that can be shown to support the things the article says, and the amount of genuine media coverage shown here is not sufficient to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Bearcat. Once you get past the refbombing, there's very little of substance to look at at all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bearcat sets out a compelling case. Thanks for that, as it is all too easy to give these refbombed promo pieces a free pass - making a case for deletion can be hard work. I too am not seeing anything in the article or elsewhere that would enable the subject to pass WP:GNG. As the subject is fairly young, this may turn out to be an example of WP:TOOSOON, but that is not for us to speculate upon here. Edwardx (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 837

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

Not notable aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The accident is actually more notable than most accidents on Wikipedia. So much so that there are many examples. User:Speedbird6104, —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to see why this is not a convincing argument. - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for a stand alone aircraft accident/incident article per Wikipedia:AIRCRASH. Although not policy or a guideline we generally follow these criteria for these types of articles. - Samf4u (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor incident, no injuries, no deaths, only damage to tire and one engine. Just not notable for an encyclopedia and a very good example of WP:RECENTISM. No one would start an article on any of the hundreds of individual blown tire incidents that happened to airliners in the 1940s or 1950s.- Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

probably more like thousands!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hardly noteworthy or unusual and not notable enough for a stand-alone article or even a mention in Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to suggest actual WP:LASTING notability, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. There was brief concern this could’ve been much worse, but then it wasn’t, and now we know it’s not. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT you must be joking!!! An article for a blown tire!!! Wikipedia servers would be full of rubbish like this, with no room for deserving articles, if we don't display common sense and delete this!!--Petebutt (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We cull how many other aviation accidents that are a hell of a lot worse than a blown tire. Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the point of deleting this. Great Mercian (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the arguments already made. The only notable thing about this incident seems to be that an F/A-18 was asked to examine the damage but this is not enough to warrant an article IMHO. Elshad (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I certainly do understand the arguments of the "Delete" voters—although this wasn't just a tire blowout; debris was then ingested into an engine which led to an engine shutdown. I think the article was created a little bit prematurely; we don't yet know what safety findings will result and if they will be noteworthy or have a lasting impact (although I'm inclined to think that they won't be particularly noteworthy). Having said that, I'd be happy to let the article stand and see if the investigation produces anything to make this article worthy of a Wikipedia page. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Engine damage is one of the things known to happen on a tire blowout. This is why emergency landings are done, an abundance of caution. So far the incident presents no compelling evidence that it will amount to anything more than breaking news. Without that, the article does little more than summarize what the aviation incident blogs and databases say. In the improbable event that this incident causes a design or procedural changes in aviation, a new article can be based on that. Right now, this incident barely rates a mention in the airline's or the aircraft's article. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am aware of that, • Gene93k, but to simply state that it was nothing more than a tire blowout is to minimise the severity of the incident. Having to shut down an engine is more problematic than simply losing a tire. And I wouldn't say that this was an incident where the crew was simply being cautious by performing an emergency landing. Flying on one engine poses greater risks—the situation may further deteriorate if the aircraft experiences other failures or if the crew makes mistakes. My guess, however, is that the investigation likely won't bring forward anything to make this incident worthy of a Wikipedia article. If you feel the article should be immediately deleted, I suggest you vote to "Delete". Dflaw4 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In response to the comment above and after a closer examination of the article. Interestingly, much of the intricate details of the article don't come from any of the cited references. This article is a aviation incident database styled narrative of a by-the-book emergency response. Contained engine failures are generally not unusual enough to get lasting historical interest. From the sourced information, the pilots burned off fuel for several hours to reduce landing weight and then landed without further incident. Maybe someday, something will emerge from this incident to cause something more than a technical service bulletin. Without evidence of such, supported by reliable sources, this is just a breaking news story of an unusual event. As AfD is not a ballot, I did not see the need to pile on, but if a !vote is demanded, here goes. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3D Fuzion

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

None notable subsidiary of a defunct company that doesn't seem to have any reliable sources about. Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, not notable. Nothing to see here. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100% Bran

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

Seems to be not notable cereal brand. I looked for sources about it but couldn't find any and the two in the article don't really work. Adamant1 (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The first reference cited in the article does not mention the cereal. The second appears to be a dead link. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this cereal has been around since at least 1947. Unfortunately newspapers.com isn't working for me right now. I'm not saying this should be kept, but given the longevity of a product familiar on the American shelves, this may warrant further searching. It may never have received significant coverage, because it is a "boring" cereal with no cute cartoon characters. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Retro/Grade. Sandstein 19:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24 Caret Games

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

None notable video game company. They seemed to have only released one game that didn't get good coverage. None of the sources in the article are good and I couldn't find anymore that might have more details about them. Adamant1 (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Retro/Grade, the game they are most known for developing. Article itself fails WP:NCORP._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanna Earnest

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

The only claim is mayor of Kollam which is not enough for her passing notability guideline. Even the source are either about her sworning or self published. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL since the subject has never won any national or state level elections. The award conferred to her is not a major award. DBig Xrayᗙ 07:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notabililty not established. Fails GNG and NPOL. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mallika Paramasivam

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

The only claim in the article is mayor of Erode which is not enough for passing WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for mayors is not passed just by stating and mininally sourcing that the mayor exists — it requires the ability to write a genuinely substantive article, supported by substantial reliable source coverage about the person, that contextualizes their political importance. But this literally just states that Mallika Paramasivam exists, the end, and cites a raw primary source table of election results and two glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that are not about her, which is not how you get a mayor over the notability bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. Gopalakrishnan

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

A politician who never elected in state or general election. Even the 5 sources are present in the article of them 3 are self published ane other two are about his candidancy. Other claim is state secretary of his party which is not enough for his notability. The article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NPOL. Article also has a single citation which is independent and reliable, that only mentions his name on a list. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being president of a political party's local organizing committee in one specific region is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and no sign of passing WP:GNG- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOL as never won elections. agree with above contributors DBig Xrayᗙ 05:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Dangar

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

Mayor of Bhadodora, third largest city of Gujarat. The other claims are holding posts on state committee of his party. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It's Vadodara not Badodora. And mayor of any city passes the WP:NPOL if s/he has received the significant coverage. There are numerous sources in Gujarati for it. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: So add some. The sources are in the article either about holding his post on the state committee of the party or sworning as mayor. Which is not enough for him to pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, Will do. Give me some time. There is no deadline. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is too bad, misguiding and person fails notability.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sitaram Jaiswal

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

Mayor of Gorakhpur which is not considered as prominent metropolitan city. Even the sources are not able to pass the are enough for passing him WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or other criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources don't see much press coverage. Interstellarity (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tuliram Ronghang

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

A district level politician. The article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. District level politicians are not notable. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG and WP:NPOL fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No contest The page is of a district level politician of India, True. The person is also a member of council, True.

Jor langneh Talk 07:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. @Jor.langneh: do not use headers to mark your votes as it will break the coding of WP:XFDC. ミラ P 02:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tkinzy

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

A tricky one seeing as a WP:BEFORE would give you hits but all hits are on Nigerian gossip blogs & announcement of a new song of his. Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SINGER & WP:ANYBIO. Perharps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't want to assume that these sources are not reliable just because I do not recognize them, [19] [20] [21], as it may just be it's a cultural difference. If it can be shown that at least one is not a RS, please ping me and I'd be happy to change my !vote. With that said, the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and certainly not actor, but seems to meet GNG based on these sources. The remainder of the sources were blogs, forums, passing mentions or otherwise insufficient to help meet GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz haha You arent Nigerian neither have you lived in Nigeria for the past 20 years like I have, you are doing your duties as such no one can blame you for mistaking [22] as a reliable source. Nigerian WP:RS are my forte & I can tell you without any doubt that it is a gossip blog. Few examples of Nigerian RS you should look out for are, but not limited to The Punch, The Guardian (Nigeria), Vanguard (Nigeria), The Sun & Nigerian Tribune. If you view the second keep !vote rationale you would see they have no sufficient understanding of what notability is & have tried to hide under your shadow(rationale) plus he is the creator of the article and also operates a gossip blog himself & i’m not surprised he’d use gossip blogs to substantiate notability claims. I’m here to answer any questions if you require me to.Celestina007 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not Nigerian (nor do I need to be to weight-in here) but prove it's not a RS. It's not listed at WP:RSN. I don't see an editorial policy or staff, so that is suspicious, but I'd like to hear what makes you think it's not a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz they have no reputation for fact checking & veracity of information & ultimately do not have any editorial oversight. It is blog generated by a single individual named Uche who focuses & discusses high societal weddings predominantly. So seeing her discuss subject of our discussion is quite suspicious per se.Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please get it listed at RSN then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz will do. Thanks for the message at my TP I really needed that.Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sites Bella Naija [23] and Trent Online [24] [25], are very popular Nigerian newspapers and lifestyle magazines, not gossip blogs as erroneously stated. Even a cursory look on these two sites will show that their coverage extends beyond entertainment to politics and more. The gossip blogs mentioned are South African. Also, the subjects of gossip blogs are mostly celebrities, no? Wikimayor (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— Wikimayor, As you are the creator of the page !voting a keep is no surprise to me. Now Both Bella Naija & Trent online are not reliable sources as per WP:RS they are gossip blogs. Furthermore implying (from your statements above) that gossip blogs discuss celebrities hence subject of our article should be notable because he is a “celebrity” that has been discussed in gossip blogs shows a gross lack of knowledge on what constitutes notability as per WP:GNG none of those unreliable gossip blogs even discuss subject of article with in-depth significant coverage. Furthermore I have observed from the statement you made on your Userpage that you yourself operate a Nigerian gossip blog which can be observed here Ha! No wonder. Also deleting the fact that you are a Nigerian blogger from your user page here days after this AFD was opened is definitely a suspicious move & a very curious case & you yourself going back to insert it here after I have pointed out the fact that you removed it few days after this AFD was opened gives out the impression that you did it purposefully to confuse participants in this AFD & probably think this collaborative project is a mere game for fun & that invariably means you probably are not here to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. The subject has not done anything in the African music industry worth talking about. What hit songs has he released? What notable awards has he won? Which of his music releases have been critically reviewed? Can the people voting keep answer these questions? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Unfortunately my vote only adds to the wildly varying opinions here already. The subject certainly does not pass the notability standards for an actor. I'm a little conflicted, however, about his notability as a musician, tending towards him not being notable enough yet, and the sources I found come from BellaNaija, which has already been discussed above as to reliability and of which I have no opinion in that respect. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per Walter Görlitz. I believe he passes notability requirements as a musician. I do not understand Celestina007's arguments against the sources already cited, simply claiming to be Nigerian is not enough to establish or disprove a source's reliability, or the notability of an individual, for the same reason that an English editor's word could not be taken as proof of a British magazine's reliability or a British musician's notability. Additionally, a cursory Google Search turned up more sources such as Blazon Magazine and The Sowetan (which is apparently a major South African publication, see: The Sowetan). News Ghana also appears legitimate, and there are mentions of him there. Finally, The Trent Online appears as though it could possibly be reliable, although I do not recognize it. I was able to find these fairly easily, so I can only assume that the sourcing used by the editor who created this page was a result of their lack of diligence, rather than a lack of sources. Granted, these are sources which report on and are heavily geared towards Africa and African countries, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to include globally sourced information, rather than merely local or regional publications from the US/Europe.IphisOfCrete (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources identified in the preceding post above which show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is not necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable. Doesn't pass either WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG as they've not been sufficiently discussed by reliable sources. @Walter Görlitz:, here is a link of reliable sources from Nigeria. Mahveotm (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep When it comes to foreign sources, I prefer to err on the side of caution and assume they are reliable unless there is solid evidence otherwise; I do not think it benefits the Wikipedia to have a bias favoring western culture. I looked up News Ghana, and they have over 25 thousand Twitter followers, so they seem to be fairly significant. Samboy (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There seems to be general consensus that this person is not currently notable but has some indications of notability. Giving at least six months of time for notability to be better established by moving to draft space seems like the consensus outcome of those who participated in this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Brinson

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

Fails WP: ENTERTAINER. A bit-part actor who has had no major roles ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an actor who doesn't appear to be notable. Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of info posted below by duffbeerforme. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Delete: Not seeing anything except for mentions in credits. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails GNG. Missvain (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Delete~~ probably "well known" to fans of the tv series the subject appeared in, but I cannot find anything that would allow more to be added to the article. Certainly existed, but not enough to pass GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote as per duffbeerforme and The Drover's Wife. Yes technically notable but I am concerned as to where and how sources can be found to make the article in-depth and more than a permastub? Aoziwe (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Roles for NACTOR. 42 episodes of Rafferty's Rules. See this to see how high her billing was. In all episodes of Kelly (Australian TV series). Also a stage performer. In a notable staging of What the Butler Saw. Austage list multiple reviews [26]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Duffbeerforme noticed, she had major/leading roles in two prominent 1980s television series. Her article is crap and her IMDB profile is a bit misleading if you skim it due to her run of nothing roles in the 90s, but she clearly passes WP:NACTOR. (NB: The 1980s are a bit of a black hole for digital Australian media without subscription access to newspaper archives, so Google not turning up much says nada about the availability of sources.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: In addition to the comments already made, Sons and Daughters (Australian TV series) and Prisoner (TV series) were extremely popular shows in Australia in the '80s, so her recurring roles there would also have brought her some notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find her notable. duffbeerforme does some good work above. Passes WP:NACTOR. Lightburst (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme - appears to pass WP:NACTOR. Bookscale (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft/Delete/Oppose keep as failing GNG per nom and Missvain. A Google web search turns all up all of 67 non-duplicate search results for the subject—all directory listings, passing mentions, and trivial coverage. The "keep" !votes are either vague waves as a policy or an essay, or they're not making policy-based reasons for keeping. WP:NACTOR is a guidance essay in that it offers supposed notability guidance (commonly abbreviated as an SNG). Many editors, incorrectly, in my view misapply it that it is a substitute for WP:GNG. It is not. One needs only read bullet point #1 of the nutshell which states, and I quote, with emphasis: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The good-faith digging of sources by duffbeerforme are trivial mentions to her supposed "billings" (common sense and none of the points at WP:NACTOR make any mention to "billings" as qualifying coverage). (I should note that the most, save for one, of the !votes are spinoff rationales of this flawed argument.) Similar to WP:CORPDEPTH for corporations, I'd call that trite and trivial coverage. Not every actor gets an article. I'd be okay with a weak draftification here, at a satisficing outcome, but, at present, we cannot allow this article to remain in the encyclopedia. Poorly sourced content on non-notable persons is, for lack of a better word, article spam, which, in turn, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Doug Mehus T·C 17:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be fair, Doug Mehus T·C, the nomination was that WP:ENTERTAINER wasn't met, so I think that's why the focus has been on WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Doug Mehus, you have it the wrong way around, you are the one that is misapplying. GNG does not outrank NACTOR. They are companion pieces. Wikipedia:Notability is the overarching guideline. One needs only read numbered point #1 of intro which states, and I quote, with emphasis: "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". As for "billings", common sense says to me that if she is billed that high then her role is significant and that is the word that is in NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme, Respectfully, I disagree with you on "billings". And yes, I'm aware WP:GNG says that, but you're missing that the SNG WP:NACTOR is predicated on the words presumed to have (...). In other words, it's not a guarantee that notability has been met. I'll clarify my bolded above. Doug Mehus T·C 13:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability as an actor. ⌚️ (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft pending potential further development. I was able to find a newspaper review commenting on her performance in a play without much effort. BD2412 T 05:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft Came to close, but felt I could do more good by opining. This is on the cusp, but really short of what we expect via GNG, particularly since this is a BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Deshpande

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

Tamil TV actress that fails to establish notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getup Srinu

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

Actor who fails to establish notability. Sources say nothing about his career. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Basically the same rationale as for the Afd on his colleague, Ram Prasad (comedian)—that is, while the subject is mentioned/discussed in a lot of articles, I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR just yet. He's got some upcoming projects, but, as of right now, I don't think he passes the notability standards for actors. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Prasad (comedian)

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

Actor that is unsourced and fails to establish notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: The subject is mentioned/discussed in a lot of articles, but I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR just yet. It seems that he has some projects coming up, but, as of right now, I don't think he passes the notability standards for actors. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esendex

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

Sources are all press releases, trade magazines or the company itself. The one article from the nottinghampost is a dead link, and archive.org doesn't seem to have a copy. There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Greatplacestowork is an award pretty much any company can win, as long as they pay $995. [27] Vexations (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few articles from usually reliable sources like the BBC, but they seem to contain interviews. So those are off. Other then that, there doesn't seem to be much else out there. Plus, the article seems like an advert anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Adamant1: just because a source is an interview does not mean it isn't reliable and can't be used. This page is a perfectly reliable source for Wikipedia purposes (though it and the related video seem to be the only ones of that nature). Bookscale (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Bookscale, I agree that https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41666820 is usable as a source. It has some quotes, but it isn't just the the CEO talking about the company, and it describes what the company does comprehensively. If we had a few more of these, the article would meet the requirements of WP:NCORP Vexations (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookscale: I was under the impression that articles containing interviews where not considered neutral because the person being interviewed isn't. To me it's a balance I guess. If you take out the interview part of the BBC article the rest pretty routine. They have 200 employees, send out two billion text messages per year on behalf of 30,000 businesses, and make £23m a year etc etc. There's nothing unique or notable about any of that. It's essentially a company press release about their performance masquerading as an article. Maybe if there was an article with a one paragraph interview and then an in-depth analyzes of some notable thing about the company, instead of just surface facts, I'd give that a pass. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: there is nothing in WP:RS at all to exclude interviews, you can't read something into a Wikipedia policy that isn't there. The article is certainly not "routine". However, as I have said above, the BBC one seems to be the only article establishing notability, and given coverage is not widespread this one doesn't seem to meet GNG so we are in agreement there. Bookscale (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say WP:RS says to exclude interviews? I said they aren't considered neutral and so care should be taken when using them. Especially with interviews of CEOs. But I make exceptions sometimes. I just don't think it's worth taking one in this case. There is Wikipedia:Interviews though. "Interviews may be published in reliable publications, but that does not make primary source material contained in them acceptable to cite claims for which Wikipedia requires secondary sources." So, I'm not really sure when an interview would be good to use. Especially for company articles. As CEO's are only going to say good things about their company and rarely do interviews unless the journalist agrees to write about them or the company in a good light. I'm fine with using interviews for straight facts, but those can usually be gotten in much better places though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: - you said There are a few articles from usually reliable sources like the BBC, but they seem to contain interviews. So those are off. Which implies you are excluding sources (and making up reasons for deletion) on the basis of Wikipedia policy that doesn't exist. The interviews pages is an essay that someone has written, not a compulsory policy like WP:RS. Bookscale (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After which when you asked I explicitly said that I might have made an exception with the BBC article despite the interview if it also had none superficial information. Maybe I didn't so in the my original delete comment, but last time I checked this doesn't have to be a complete dump of every damn thought in a persons head about it. Like I said, interview's are for superficial information and care should be taken when using them. I've said that since the beginning. That's also exactly what Wikipedia says. In no way is that "making up reasons for deletion" or anything else your trying to read into it. Deciding the reliability of every source is a balance of weighing different things. In this case I don't feel the sources with the interviews work. In others, maybe they would. Get over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote doesn't have to be a complete record of everything a person thinks, but if you're going to argue for deletion it has to be justified. And in this case your first comment was very poorly thought out. Bookscale (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was poorly thought out. To give you the benefit of the doubt though, I'll say it was poorly typed out. How about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are plenty of sources to show it exists, but they are routine commercial / marketing in nature, and mostly not sufficiently independent. Aoziwe (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cookie cutter-style promotional article on a firm which doesn't meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons previously stated. Dorama285 21:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A ProQuest database search of all Aust and NZ newspapers did not find a single reference (whether WP:IRS or not) in any article. Of course that's only Aust and NZ, but does suggest the company is not particularly notable in the antipodes. Cabrils (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking third party in depth sources. LibStar (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. No objection after two relists. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Representative Office in Norway

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

fails WP:ORG. This was a de facto embassy that is now closed. There is no inherent notability of embassies. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:05, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 21:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Trade Office in Surabaya

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

fails WP:GNG. this is a defacto consulate. Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lewisham bus station

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

Non-notable bus station. This bus station closed in 2014 and the coordinates pin point to the outside of Lewisham DLR station. There is only one source for this article which is insufficient. I propose that this article either gets merged with Lewisham#Buses and give a brief note saying that there was formerly a bus station at Lewisham but it closed in 2014 or this article should be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lewisham station. Easy and viable alternative to deletion where the sourced material can be placed. Bookscale (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a very short page about a non-notable, now defunct bus station, without any meaningfully sourced content. Merging the content to another article would require finding better WP:RS for the information first, which suggests it’s not even appropriate to merge. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:39, 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 redirect to High Assurance Internet Protocol Encryptor. Sandstein 21:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TACLANE

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

Notability fail ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 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) 17:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to High Assurance Internet Protocol Encryptor, where it is mentioned as an example of such a system. I wasn't able to find in-depth independent sourcing to support a standalone article. It seems like a reasonable search term and the target article gives context to the reader for this niche equipment. I don't think anything needs to be merged. Hence, redirect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mark Viking. The article fails to establish notability, as two of the three sources in the article are from the manufacturer's website, making them primary and insufficient to establish notability. The term is mentioned at High Assurance Internet Protocol Encryptor, making this a possibly useful redirect. Not a very active user (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rick White (musician). Sandstein 21:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Memoreaper

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

Album, not properly referenced as having any notability claim per WP:NALBUMS. To be fair, this was a good faith creation at the time -- in 2007, we didn't actually have any specific notability standard for albums beyond the fact that a notable artist had recorded them, so we just automatically kept any album so long as the artist was a blue link and the album's existence was verifiable. But that's not the standard anymore: to be kept in 2020, an album has to show distinctions like chart success or noteworthy music awards or enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. But this can't show either of the first two, and for sourcing literally all I can find is one album review in Exclaim! -- which is a start, but not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rick White (musician) where the album is already mentioned. This could be a viable search term and since a redirect target already exists, then I think a redirect would be more helpful than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Aoba47. There is no indication of notability on that page as it exists.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Guardians of Order. Disregarding BOZ as per usual. Content can be merged and/or redirect target can be changed, but there's agreement that we don't want a separate article about this. Sandstein 21:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-Stat dX

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

Article on a commercial product has been sourced for the last 15 years to the manufacturer's own website and a retail ecommerce site. A BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) fails to unearth RS in reputable, mainstream, non-fiction media. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge and Redirect to Big Eyes, Small Mouth - reviews definitely exist to satisfy NBOOK (and make no mistake, this is a book and not a generic "commercial product"). However, the generic version of the game system is of decidedly less interest than the anime version, Big Eyes, Small Mouth and also had the misfortune of being published near the end of the publisher's existence. 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 most notable game system using Tri-Stat rules is the most appropriate merge target. I invite the Nom to withdraw the nomination so we can get this done efficiently. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"reviews definitely exist" Sources must be demonstrated, not simply declared Chetsford (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, for a Merge !Vote no such evidence is required, but here is one RS SPS review anyway; I have previously established the credentials of this ~~review~~publisher of reviews, an expert on gaming who has published for The Scotsman. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC) corrected Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fan blog "geeknative.com" is not RS. The author is "Guest Reviewer". I can find no credentials for "Guest Reviewer" that would make him qualify as SPS. (In general, for an encyclopedia, we imagine RS to be things like books from Routledge or Springer, the New York Times or NPR, Journal of Sociology, etc. Whens sources like supergamefan.net or geeksuperstargamerz.blogspot.com are called RS it invites a special level of scrutiny which, in this case, is not surmounted, I regret.) Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Chetsford, you could be so much more helpful at AfD if you were to read and internalize WP:NBOOK rather than invoking personal values and feelings that conflict with WP policy. This is particularly true given your responsibilities as Admin. In this case - and regardless of reviews - a Merge is the policy-compliant option. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guardians of Order, the article on the publisher/developer that created the system. It would make more sense as the target than BESM, as the system was used in several of their other products outside of BESM. It is also already listed on that page as a "generic roleplaying system" that is listed as being related to, but not part of, the BESM line. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Guardians of Order per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fahim Faisal

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

Non-notable musician, tagged as such since July 2017. Authored by Faisal Amin Kazi, who evidently knows the subject well enough for this photo to be his own work, and coincidentally chose the subject's birth name as his username.

If everything in the article is true, he has released a solo album and a mixed album on G-Series (record label), so according to WP:NMUSIC criterion #5, may be notable. However, there is no independent discussion or analysis of him or his music. The cited sources (and those found by searches of the usual Google types in English and Bengali) are merely promotional release announcements. At this point in his career it is WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article. Worldbruce (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When "Fahim Faisal - UX Designer" appears in a Google search before anything having to do with this musician, it's not a good sign. I could find nothing to support either WP:GNG pr WP:MUSICBIO. The existing sources do not help either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment It's hard to determine if the subject of the article satisfies wp:artist or wp:band without having the language proficiency to read the sources. English-language sources are weak. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:54, 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.

[1] Viehbeck, Markus (2017). Transcultural Encounters in the Himalayan Borderlands: Kalimpong as a "Contact Zone". Heidelberg University Publishing. p. 132. ISBN 978-3946054580.

[1]