Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:19, 2 February 2020

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 February	3 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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggs Beauregard

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

Per WP:MERGEREASON bullet points 3 and 4. As the article is "similar to Eggs Benedict", it should be merged with that article just like all other variants of that dish. Also, it would greatly benefit from the context in Eggs Benedict. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content in this article can't merge to Eggs Benedict article. I haven't found any reliable sources so far that would support this. I've removed the line causing the confusion from the article. The Bloomsbury book explains that the term is used for two different dishes. Hickoryglaze (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think I agree with Hickoryglaze here. This seems to be a distinct dish, with it's own variations, and reliable sourcing to support it. I could see a "See also" entry on Eggs Benedict maybe being appropriate, though. Waggie (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggie: Which subject are you advocating keeping? Unless many of the sources are talking about both, we have two subjects here, which shouldn't be covered in one article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhododendrites, I'm advocating keeping Eggs Beauregard as a separate article (hence the keep vote, rather than a merge vote). There's reliable sourcing that discusses Eggs Beauregard independently of Eggs Benedict. Perhaps not the best example, but Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet are both variants/successors to Ethernet, and have standalone (albeit problematic) articles as there is reliable sourcing that discusses them independently - would you advocate merging these back into Ethernet? Waggie (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but which eggs beauregard? The article starts "Eggs Beauregard is an American term that is used for two egg dishes." Unless the sources predominantly talk about it being two dishes (and based on what I'm seeing, they don't), we should not have an article about two subjects. If we have two albums with the title "Greatest Hits", we don't keep it because both of them together return enough sources for notability -- we need to split it up and determine which is notable. If one is a variant on the other, we need sources to say that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems kind of silly to me to try and narrow down the article to only one particular recipe for Eggs Beauregard. It's a name that's gained attention WP:SIGCOV, and they're related dishes. That's my two cents. It's OK to disagree. :) Waggie (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a different recipe; it's a different subject. That's why the article says at the very start that it's an article about two subjects by the same name. They are both eggs, yes. Unless we're writing an article about a word itself, it's a WP:DICDEF (and WP:NOR) problem to write about two subjects just because they have the same name unless sources explicitly cover them together. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From DICDEF: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns." (emphasis added) - I think that the article covers more than linguistic concerns and they are related by having the same name. Either way, I think it's time for us to leave the discussion to others. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively with eggs benedict. Among the high quality sources I'm seeing, there's a clear connection with the other topic. E.g. the cited NY Times article: "Eggs Beauregard is a twist on the familiar Eggs Benedict" and Houstonia: "Eggs Benedict, southern style." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer deletion to merging. Your logic is backwards, we can't merge an ambiguous term without explaining the ambiguity and it doesn't belong in the Eggs Benedict article. A passing comment in the NY Times is not enough to merge these articles. I would object strongly to my content being used this way I will object to the addition at the Eggs Benedict article as well. Hickoryglaze (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources that would clearly justify inclusion in the benedict article, so if it's deleted from here it would obviously be redirected where it's mentioned elsewhere. To the extent this is about two different subjects and one of them isn't necessarily considered a benedict, that wouldn't be merged (hence "selectively"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'especially without the input of editors at that article who should have been given a chance to comment before a complicated "selective merger" was forced on them. (I am reluctant to outright support deletion as I think Hickoryglaze is most likely frustrated here, but I support their not wanting to circumvent the usual talk page discussion that should take place before mergers, especially a selective one that raise the possibly that inappropriate content will be pushed into the article.) It's not what AfD is for. Dartslilly (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carmela Zumbado

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

She doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the subject meets WP:GNG—the article alone lists sources from Digital Spy, Hollywood Reporter and Bustle. As for WP:NACTOR, the subject has a main role in the second season of You (TV series), and has made several other appearances in TV shows and films, including Need for Speed (film), so I think a weak case could be made for NACTOR, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - She meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, and has had recurring and guest roles in numerous notable TV series and a few films. IphisOfCrete (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, she is the only person to have a main role in "You", without her own Wikipedia page. She has almost 500k followers on Instagram.JackofDiamonds2 (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She meets both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has several credits in notable works such as a supporting role in the feature film Need for Speed and has appeared in many roles on television, and had a main role in a very notable and popular show, You. Not only this, she is a social media personality and has done several interviews. She definitely does meet notability guidelines! DaanaPlaato (talk) 01:53, 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. Consensus is at least to not cover this as a separate article. There is no consensus whether to redirect this title or where to; editors can continue discussing this on an appropriate talk page. Sandstein 08:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen

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

This story is a small part of the appendix of The Lord of the Rings. The topic of the story is covered much more thoroughly in the articles on the characters of Aragorn and Arwen. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (The appendix is bursting with unnotable details.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found an article titled "'Her Choice Was Made and Her Doom Appointed'Tragedy and Divine Comedy in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" I couldn't access and a college term paper. WP:GNG fail. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article you are looking for is listed here. It is "'Her Choice Was Made and Her Doom Appointed': Tragedy and Divine Comedy in the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" by Richard C. West, published in The Lord of the Rings 1954-2004 (2006). I (and others) will have a copy of such books (though mine are mostly packed away at the moment), so please do ask. The irony is that this is the most important of the Appendices, and it talked about more than any of the others. But material on that is probably best placed elsewhere, rather than in its own article. Carcharoth (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lord of the Rings. I'm not sure about the subject's notability by itself, but it's in the appendix of LOTR and it seems like a valid enough search term to redirect to that book. — Hunter Kahn 12:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arwen is a much more specific (qua, better) redirect target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need freestanding articles on the contents of the apendicies, and they are not really worth being redirects either. That this has existed over 14 years with only primary sources is a sign of how we have failed to clense Wikipedia of the initial mistakes in its creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion (semi-serious) - merge Aragorn and Arwen and material on The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen to the existing redirect Aragorn and Arwen. I discovered this AfD, ironically, after looking at some pairs and commenting here. See Galadriel and Celeborn and Eärendil and Elwing for existing examples. Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Those other two pairs normally act in concert. True, Earendil normally went sailing without his wife, but their sailing together was key. Arwen may have made Aragorn's banner, but she did not accompany him in the Fellowship or go to Minas Terith in his first battle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the outcome, the title should Redirect to Arwen where it is discussed. The principle should be that we do our best to find a sensible "home" for plausible search terms, which this story title certainly is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap If we turn this into a redirect, it's a bit of an WP:XY issue. The store belongs to neither Aragorn nor Arwen alone, so I think it would be strange to redirect to either of them. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll think about this, we may be making a mistake here. Google Scholar turns up some 70 papers on the Tale, confirming Carcharoth's note on its importance among scholars, so perhaps the right answer is to say it's notable, and to rewrite the article using some of them. I'll look into it tomorrow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 15:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage by multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and justify a stand alone article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lord of the Rings is the most appropriate decision. Patrickbetzig (talk) 08:14, 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. A lot of the keep arguments are at best optimistic with regard to how closely their arguments accord with policy and we have a pretty good consensus that the current sourcing fails to pass GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EverlyWell

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not seeing anything better than the previously deleted version, still no in-depth coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NCORP. GSS ^💬 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all the previous contestants to look at it again. @SmokeyJoe, Ohnoitsjamie, Jéské Couriano, Orangemike, Deepfriedokra, Robert McClenon, SamHolt6, Voceditenore, Cullen328, DBigXray, Miniapolis, Andy Dingley, Vituzzu, and CNMall41:. GSS ^💬 17:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nothing to show that WP:NCORP is met. As in the previous AfD, the only thing that's been said about them is that they received funding money. I have removed some of the company's own promotional/fringe claims from the article. --bonadea contributions talk 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forbes contributor pieces (same author) and PR, not enough for notability. But I think it's unfortunate, since the now-cleaned up "criticism" section and the lead saying "Their test kits are not currently approved by the FDA. Multiple medical doctors question the necessity and usefulness of these tests, particularly the food sensitivity test." are valuable information for people looking up EverlyWell online. Wikipedia is about the only online source with enough juice to bump up in search results against marketing and sales. Schazjmd (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete. Stuff like this really needed to go. But what else is there? Does this pass any sort of 'notable scoundrel' test? Should we be keeping (like some other quackery) as a warning? Or, given the inevitable positive spin which will be shoe-horned back into here (like the quotes in that deletion!), should we even try? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely not "quackery" because the products of this company are now Carried by retail giant Target and Retail giant Walmart. Also carried at drugstore giant CVS. Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major retailers also carry homeopathy remedies and healing crystals, so being sold at Walmart doesn't really mean it's not quackery. Not that that has any bearing on whether the article should be deleted or not. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges SpicyMilkBoy. A health test must be accurate for a Drug Store giant to carry it... a healing crystal- not so much. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the arbiter now between genuine healthcare and a quack product is Walmart? (Who also sell little elastic wristbands to cure seasickness by pressure points.) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A health test must be accurate for a Drug Store giant to carry it. You actually believe this is true?! Levivich 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this incarnation of the article in question is markedly similar to the version that was previously deleted. A WP:BEFORE search for new sources (published between Jan 2019 and Jan 2020) turns some press releases and funding announcements, but nothing in-depth or truly independent from the subject. As far as my view is concerned, WP:NCORP is still not being met. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NORUSH I see that the article was recently deleted and I have read the arguments. The company is new and poised to control the mail order health test kits. In 2019 they got an influx of cash. I would like to see the article developed. A relatively new deal on the television show Shark Tank is also notable. There is much RS which can improve the article. Notable company which is poised to be even more notable. Lightburst (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Counter WP:CRYSTALBALL Wikipedia doesn't care what is "poised" to do anything, only what is already notable. If this company becomes notable in the future, it can have an article on it. Until then, delete. --Danielklein (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete sources read like press releases and routine coverage. Still does not meet WP:CORP "Good to know" is not an inclusion criterion. Wikipedia is not a consumer watchdog site. As Andy Dingley said. And "multiple doctors question" is nebulous, and does not do anything to show notoriety. There are plenty of non notable tests physicians feel doubtful about as a class, and this is just one non notable entity dealing with such tests. "Poised to grow", sounds like a marketing pitch. And Shark Tank is there to promote businesses-- Deep fried okra 18:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, i think WP:G4 applies. And a second AFD is certainly not being in a rush to delete. The thing has now been created twice. The previous deletion was 1 year ago-- plenty of time.-- Deep fried okra 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus changes. That is why it is unfortunate that an editor had pinged the editors from a full year ago. We might have a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS with a natural AfD process. I have not seen this done, where previous AfD !voters from 365 days ago are pinged to sink an AfD. Seems rigged doing it like this. The company has secured 50 million dollars in May of 2019 which is 5 months after the first AfD ended in delete. Take a new look. And WP:TROUT to the nominator for the pings. Lightburst (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G4 does not apply to this article. It is not substantially unchanged and there has been new information after the first AfD. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are all experienced users, and I believe their comments are coming after reviewing the new information about the company not because I have pinged them. Regarding WP:NORUSH, it's not a policy, and it does not apply here becasue the article was recreated in November 2019, under a different title to evade the protection at EverlyWell. GSS ^💬 05:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: I looked through your previous AfD nominations and it is not your practice to ever ping !voters from previous AfDs. I have no idea why you did it this time - esp since you pinged editors from a year ago. But it got this AfD off to head shaking start and sunk the AfD rather quickly. Lightburst (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, GSS has pinged previous participants before [1]. Nor is that unusual, I've been pinged several times by other editors making 2nd nominations, particularly for articles with complex histories like this one. Note also that GSS pinged every participant on the previous AfD who wasn't a sockpuppet. The fact that we all opined "delete" that time is immaterial, and I don't think it's fair to say we can't be trusted to judge this new version dispassionately. Besides, the first two delete !votes here are from editors who had not participated in the first AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can go round and round. In that AfD that you highlight they pinged participants from an AfD which ended in no consensus exactly two months prior. This was pinging editors from an AfD which ended a full calendar year ago. And you can see I participate in hundreds of AfDs. In my experience this is not done. It is not normal, it is not recommended, it is unusual. I would point out that, the nominator does not normally do this because I looked. It is not best practice. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We shall have to agree to disagree, but one could argue that you listing this AfD at the Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment that this AfD "feels rigged" by the nominator seems a lot more like canvassing than those pings do. Just saying. Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ARS notified to improve an article. But the members probably peeked in to see this is a lost cause and a time waste. You can look through the records and archives on ARS to educate yourself about the mission rather than casting aspersions. By the way you are not the first, and won't be the last. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am thoroughly familiar with ARS. I even got six of these in my 13 years on Wikipedia (for what it's worth). Listing an article for rescue is one thing. Commenting there that its AfD is rigged another. It's entirely inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of independent coverage; sources are primarily press releases, routine funding announcements and promo pieces/interviews practically written by the company itself. Fails NCORP and may be suitable for G4. –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP might be the only balanced source for consumers to find out the dangers of this company. The article can be cleaned up and the fringe unsourced parts removed. I am willing to make a start on the page. Also WP:NOTPAPER, more criticism will come up over time if the company is not doing peer reviewed studies.--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept than a cleanup may be required, but AfD is not cleanup. For our purposes here we cannot assume that the topic will accrue more coverage in the future (WP:CRYSTAL), as we are only considering on and off-wiki coverage that exists at present. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Does it matter if the Forbes article, despite being published by a contributor, got "Editors' Pick"? [2] I see the CNN article [3] isn't done by the news staff just people getting a cut of the profits from those who buy what they talk about. How many of the news search results are paid commercials and press releases, and how many are legitimate coverage? A lot of search results to sort through. TechCrunch seems like a reliable source. [4] ~~So does this[5]~~ So I say that's enough independent coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 19:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-23/at-home-health-tests-get-the-direct-to-consumer-treatment https://www.usmagazine.com/shop-with-us/news/this-everlywell-metabolism-test-can-help-inform-your-weight-loss/ meet WP:GNG Dream Focus 21:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From US Magazine: Get the Metabolism Test (originally $89) on sale for just $71 from Everlywell for a limited time with code: RESULTS20 at checkout! That's an advertisement, not reliable independent coverage. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage consists of funding announcements (which are trivial coverage per WP:NCORP), press releases and unreliable sources such as Forbes contributor pieces and Gazette Review, which "publishes articles written by users & freelancers" and states "a variety of companies provide products or services to GazetteReview.com for free in the hopes that their companies will be mentioned in reviews" , i.e., it's a spammy blog. Regarding the arguments that this should be kept to inform people that the tests are unreliable, that is emphatically not what Wikipedia is for; refer to the official disclaimer that Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. There are many scams and stupid ideas in the world, we only write about the ones that are notable. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was easy last time, both at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverlyWell and at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell. It is difficult, because the question is now whether it has become notable for fringe science being peddled as medicine. The insertion of the Criticisms section may be a clever way to sneak its real notability in. The company isn't notable yet for being a successful home ~~quack~~ test product manufacturer, but the controversy does appear to be notable. I disagree with User:Lightburst, because being poised to become anything is just up and coming too soon. If the company is notable, the article should be negative. It is difficult because it isn't obvious whether a negative article is warranted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete. According to the lead, the test kits are not FDA-approved and the company appeared on an episode of Shark Tank. That doesn't spell WP:ORGCRIT to me, just another attempt at WP:SEO. Miniapolis 21:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Still lacking in coverage depth from solid sources, despite obvious SEO and marketing efforts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Wow, that US magazine source is terrible but the other sources aren't much better. We should never reward spammers and scammers and deceptive paid editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the discussion between Andy Dingley and Lightburst, and giving the oxygene of publicity to this slightly dubious enterprise. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Like Robert McClenon, I found deletion easy last time, this time not so clear-cut. I suspect the original "Criticism" section on this new version had as its goals SEO optimization and acceptance here on the basis that the article is "balanced" and showing increased coverage of the company. But really, those refs are basically about the validity of using the IgG test for detecting allergies—not about the company itself. Alternatively, this new version of the article may be a good faith attempt to "warn the public", but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia in the absence of notability. As far as I'm concerned there are only two articles that are from mainstream, independent sources that genuinely focus on the company itself: this one from Bloomberg Businessweek and this one from NPR. The remainder are either press release-based or puff-pieces (I include the Forbes and TechCrunch ones in the latter). This one from Business Insider is about data protection and primarily about 23andMe and Ancestry.com with only a name-check in one sentence for EverlyWell. The company's main claims to fame are appearing on Shark Tank and a bunch of people complaining/warning about one of the tests they market. Not very impressive. Are the Bloomberg and NPR articles on the company sufficient? I'm not sure. I'll probably stay on the fence for now. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic has received in-depth coverage since last deletion but the page in its current state is WP:TNT-worthy. It is still a victim of WP:REFBOMBING and would need a complete rewrite in my opinion to meet proper tone. On a complete separate note, I would suggest salting the page so that it needs a review through AfC and approval by admin for recreation. It does appear to at least have a COI in its creation (and possibly UPE) and is wasting everyone's time dealing with it. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on this article's history (for those who haven't checked the logs) Justlettersandnumbers (an admin) restored the deleted versions so that a comparison could be made. However, the article under consideration now was created in November 2019 by Literalkoala with this edit [6]. It is substantially different from earlier versions.

The first time it was created was in December 2018 by Neerajmadhuria72014 (now blocked for UPE and socking). It was draftified and deleted in January 2019 per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell. The second version was created in January 2019 by Mohamed Ouda (now blocked for UPE and socking) and deleted in January 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverlyWell. Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately editors see paid editing and socking and some reflexively !vote delete. How about we debate the merits of this company having an article. Paid editing and socking does not invalidate the company's notability. The article was already tagged for paid editing. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the point of my comment. The point is that the current version is substantially different from the UPE ones and should be judged on its merits, not on the fate or creators of its previous incarnations. There is no evidence that this version is connected in any way to those versions, but the current state of the history does not make that clear. Voceditenore (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its fate needs decided on its own merit. After that however, what do we do? If it is deleted, I believe it should be salted. Being substantially different doesn't clear it from UPE accusations. It could just mean it was written by a different paid editor and not someone from the company. Not making a direct accusation, just pointing out that we cannot say one way or another it is (or isn't) UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt because it's been recreated multiple times by UPEs. – Levivich 01:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it ridiculous that editors are accusing Literalkoala of being a paid editor. Have you even looked at their edit history? Hay House, Graham Reed (psychologist), Susan Clancy, Culemborg fireworks disaster, Breast milk and more. And salt? Really? Everywell is one of those companies that keeps coming up in various social media posts and people want to understand what it is. Erasing (and salting) will only send them to the companies website. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia where people go to get informed information. I think this page deserves to stay and inform.Sgerbic (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I edited this a while back and was pleased to see the well deserved criticism of the company it had. I just reviewed it again and the article certainly does NOT reflect anyone creating it on behalf of the company, if that was ever the case in the first place. In it's current state, I'm sure EverlyWell would love it to be deleted. Why are we playing into their hands by discussing COI as a reason to delete it? If it is to be deleted, it should be ONLY on the basis on notability. Also, the banner on the article ("This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments..." ) must seem perplexing to any reader. I can see the unanswered question: "Who would pay someone to write THIS about their company?" RobP (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepClearly enough WP:RS coverage to pass GNG. whether the article needs a rerwite is not an AfD discussion.
Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-23/at-home-health-tests-get-the-direct-to-consumer-treatment
Fortune - https://fortune.com/2019/10/22/wework-theranos-female-startup-ceo/
WAll Street Journal - https://www.wsj.com/articles/venture-investors-bet-50-million-on-test-kit-startup-everlywell-11555414200
Cosmopolitan - https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a27533540/at-home-sti-std-test-kits/

Gogolwold (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage and whats there reads like a press releases. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 15:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...whats there reads like a press releases" Seriously? This makes me think people voting here are not actually reading the article at all. Fully half of the lead is criticism: "The company's test kits are not approved by the FDA. Multiple medical doctors question the necessity and usefulness of these tests. IgG tests are not accurate enough to be regularly used by allergists or medical doctors in diagnosing allergies and sensitivities. The presence of IgG antibodies does not confirm an allergy but rather that the body has encountered that substance at some point in the recent past." This reflects the article main body text. What company would write a press release anything like THIS?? RobP (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well there’s canvassing in the nomination, so you can’t expect much better unfortunately. It’s a pile on. Gogolwold (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

canvassing in the nomination.. are you serious? GSS ^💬 17:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what else would you call pinging everyone who voted delete last time? Gogolwold (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one user to !vote keep in the previous AfD and FYI that user was blocked for undisclosed paid editing. This is common practice not very unusual and as Voceditenore pointed out above the first two delete !votes here are from editors who had not participated in the first AfD. GSS ^💬 17:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS:@Fitindia:@CNMall41: I have not yet seen an explanation as to why some of the DELETE voters are claiming the article reads like a press release (or should be evaluated as a COI/UPE issue), when this is unarguably not the case -- as I pointed out just above. RobP (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying that it "reads like a press release." I also didn't say it needs evaluated for COI. I left several comments which stated it appears to have a COI based on its creation but that it was NOT a direct accusation (and the creator now appears blocked for such). My comments were basically what to do IF it is deleted, nothing else. I also stated it needs evaluated on its own merit outside of any COI so not sure why I got pinged. On another note, I am not sure anyone has addressed my comment about the need for WP:REFBOMBING. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How frustrating! Before voting can you please READ the article and do a little research. The creator of this NEW version is obviously NOT a paid editor and the page as currently written is NOT something that a company would want to have paid for. This is a BRAND NEW VERSION - quit talking about the older versions. OMG I can't even. Sgerbic (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What the heck is this @GSS: if not RS from Harriet Hall https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/everlywell-at-home-lab-tests-that-dont-make-sense
- Let me repeat your comment for you, OMG! How frustrating! Before voting can you please take some time and READ the policies? Rp2006 you forget to ping Deepfriedokra in your comment above. GSS ^💬 03:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know why I was pinged, but I will say that sourcing is still insufficient to meet the notability requirement. EverlyWell being happy/unhappy with the content is not relevant. And we are not a soapbox from which to denounce anyone or anything for any perceived wrongdoing. As the article deals with living people, we are tacking toward shoal waters if we argue to keep as a public benefit to warn against the big bad ogre..As with a recent BLP I've been dealing with, our job as encyclopedists is to build an encyclopedia. Not to fix the world's wrongs. Or to announce them.-- Deep fried okra 03:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that the sources listed above by Gogolwold are simply not sufficient to meet WP:CORP.-- Deep fried okra 03:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. The WSJ, Fortune and Bloomberg articles all pass WP:ORGCRIT Gogolwold (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not said the article reads like a press release. Some of the sources do.-- Deep fried okra 03:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then... It seemed like you and others were saying this WP article looked like a press release. ("Lacks in-depth coverage and whats there reads like a press release") Others made that mistake as well, so I'm not sure it was all my fault for misconstruing comments of that variety here. OK then... so the issue is some of the citations used in this article read like a press release? Yes, I just looked again. A minority of the articles used as citations seem to be uncritical. But unless you and like minded folks here are stating otherwise, they seem to be independent of the subject. So what's the beef? If the media covers something positively it is not allowed? I don't see this stance as being a WP rule. In any case, those are the minority here, and used to established what the company's details and claims were/are. But they are countered by the much larger number of citations critical of it. And that is reflected in the tone of the entire article, including the lead. So, what is the problem then? Also, would not deleting some of the pro- material (if it is thought to be too much) be better than deleting the entire article? RobP (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re salting so an admin must approve. That is not how we do things. The RfC reviewers need not be admins. And you do't need an admin to review an article to see if it would meet requirements. It would be best though if it were left to an RfC reviewer to decide on main spacing further iterations.-- Deep fried okra 03:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are enough sources to pass WP:RS however, it needs to trimmed for neutrality. Patrickbetzig (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC) — Patrickbetzig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relist. Feels like delete but more time may help sort out. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:53, 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 and redirect to Yes and no#Aye and variants. There is a 40% off sale on redirects this week, and we wouldn't want to miss out on those kind of savings. BD2412 T 16:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aye aye, sir

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

Pure WP:DICDEF: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide." The only citations are (1) two dictionary entries and (2) to one college's ROTC course material. In addition, the nautical usage of the word aye or ay is already discussed at Yes and no#Aye and variants, to which Aye (yes) directs. An attempt to redirect the page to Yes and no#Aye and variants was resisted by one editor, who also restored a variety of unsourced material to the page. Neutrality^talk 17:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Neutrality^talk 17:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the opportunities for expansion beyond dictionary are endless. Military, popular culture, cartoons, etc. These things WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify sources that show significant, in-depth coverage of this phrase specifically? Not just references in pop culture or indications that the phrase exists? We already have Glossary of nautical terms. --Neutrality^talk 19:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is useful and has a long history, until just one person gets irritated by its existence. --GwydionM (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of "article" is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It completely misses the point of what an encyclopedia is for. "Aye" or maybe "Aye-aye" might warrant a dictionary entry, but "aye aye, sir" would be preposterous as an entry in any reference work. Eric ^talk 19:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and redirect to Yes and no#Aye and variants. There's really not much to say about the term, unless someone can come up with its origin, which is pretty doubtful. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. This is at most a dictionary definition, and a long-standing piece of original research. I agree with Eric that this article is an embarrassment as it stands, and there is no meaningful chance that this can be turned into an actual encyclopedia article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to Yes and no#Aye and variants per nom and Clarityfiend. This is a poorly sourced article that is half WP:DICDEF and half WP:OR. It is already covered in the proposed redirect target, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiktionary has this entry and that is the appropriate wiki project for definitions of words, idioms and phrases. Per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In some cases a word or phrase can be the subject of an article, but it must meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The word or phrase must be the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. I cannot find any such sources, and the page is distinctly lacking any. There is an interesting but unsourced description of how the navy term may have arisen, but without a source it is impossible to say whether this is folk etymology or real, and without reliable sourcing, it should not be there. Examples of usage would properly belong in Wiktionary, not here. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend and possibly Merge some of the information or references from the page.IphisOfCrete (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Phrase is available on Wikitionary. GargAvinash (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Alex-h (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If somebody advocated for this, and worked on rescuing it, I could go along. Ma'am, this is merely dicdef, ma'am. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is linguistically and historically useful across subject areas and serves as an almost unique example of very specific language. I am an English teacher and graduate of a naval military academy and these words are not mere terminology. They are the soul of a sailor. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.47.65.99 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC) — 97.47.65.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are split between "keep" and "merge". A decision on which can be taken outside this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beerware

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

Non-notable injoke. The fact that it's been used a few times (as demonstrated by the 'sources') does not constitute significant coverage. Amisom (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per list of sources from the previous nomination. Renomination contains no substantial new arguments and therefore fails WP:BEFORE. Modernponderer (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the speedy keep criteria apply...? {Clue: none.} Amisom (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amisom, that would be the first one: The nominator [...] fails to advance any argument for deletion. By the way, "{Clue: none.}" is WP:UNCIVIL; please refrain from using language like that here. Modernponderer (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernponderer: Oh dear, did you accidentally forget to read the whole of WP:SK#1? Bless. That criterion is for where what is actually being proposed is something other than deletion, eg. redirection or nomination. I am definitely proposing deletion. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the previous discussion (nine years ago) reached the wrong conclusion. Renomination is explicitly allowed here at Wikipedia, especially nine years later, and if you think a rule should be introduced to ban it – or that a new Speedy Keep criterion should be created to cover it – you'll want to propose that at WP:VPP. In the meantime, don't scream "speedy keep" when you just mean "I don't like this nomination and I wish it wasn't happening", and we'll get along just fine. Amisom (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Amisom: Your reading of that criterion is not accurate: perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging (emphasis mine). Neither is your understanding of my !vote – I have no objection to renomination per se; I am objecting to a renomination without valid reasoning. And your language has crossed into WP:NPA territory now. Modernponderer (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernponderer: Nope. You're mistaken. On both counts. Go ahead and file a report at WP:ANI if you're sure you're right though. I wont' stop you. Amisom (talk) 17:29, 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 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I did a search on 'beerware license' on Google News and I found many discussions of the Beerware licence in various technical journals etc. I believe that's good enough to establish WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: Care to link to any so we can test whether they're WP:SIGCOV? See also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Amisom (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amisom: As an example, Linux Insider, Hewlett-Packard, etc. reliable sources. Yes, there are situations where something is mentioned in many sources, but is still not notable. However, after going through a lot of sources, I do not believe that this is the case here. Ross-c (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: Read what I said again. I didn't question whether Hewlett-Packard is a reliable source. I made two points: (i) I invited you to link to the pages you say you found, and (ii) I explained that this is so we can assess whether or not they discuss 'beerware' "directly and in detail". Happy to wait. Amisom (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amisom: If you want a front page Washington Post article solely about Beerware, then obviously I can't produce one. As I said, I have looked through many resources. E.g. a google search on "Beerware License" on google scholar shows that the terms is discussed in peer reviewed research on open source licensing such as [7] It's discussed in the bookMakers at Work: Folks Reinventing the World One Object or Idea at a Time by Steven Osborn - searchable on Google books. Listed among other licenses in this paper [8], Mentioned in 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar - Musings on Linux and Open Source by Eric S. Raymond ' (again available through Google Books, etc. Discussed in Alfred Glossbrenner's Master Guide to Free Software for Ibms and Compatible Computers (again google books), and so on. This is the kind of coverage I found - and yes there are many sources, but many sources does not mean that something is not notable - just that the number of sources by itself does not prove notability. (Which I was aware of before you pointed it out, thank you.) I have not just counted the sources, but looked into what is said about the license, and its use in the world. And, I believe that in this case notability is achieved. Ross-c (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: The Kim and Bae paper doesn't contain "significant coverage"; a one-word mention in a list is clearly not sufficient. The same goes for the Dempsey et al article: the only mention is in this sentence: Reflecting the informal attitude of many contributors, the information here runs the gamut from authors who claim a copyright on their software (rare) to "beerware," "freely distributable," and many variations along these lines. That doesn't count as "directly and in detail" by anyone's standard. Got anything else? (And no, it doesn't need to be a front page from the Post. It just needs to meet the WP:GNG.) Amisom (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to shareware. I do not agree with the other keeps above that this meets notability requirements for an article in its own right. However it does deserve mention somewhere and the logical place is the shareware page that has a description of licenses. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while a merge to shareware would work as a second choice, I believe the sourcing is just about good enough to suggest notability. Lepricavark (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likely keep (holding off on a bolded !vote until I can find sources). I'm not in the programming world, but even I've seen this around for years and it doesn't quite seem like a good fit for merge in shareware. TBD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 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 10:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Child Prodigy Awards

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

Does not meet WP:NOTE, seems to be a promotion for a [so-far] one off event without criteria for awards or any appropriate significance - a sort of nominate-yourself talent show with a pretentious name. Smerus (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable award ceremony was held which honoured 100 prodigies from all over the world. News coverage is there from all countries. Looks fine to me, just need copy editing though and a few arrangements. Thank you.L2pkpandey (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: L2pkpandey (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Comment. WP article Child prodigy has the sourced and cited definition "A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert." There is no evidence that the 100 children involved here meet this definition (and a number are over the age of ten). This WP article under discussion lends the event credibility to which it is not entitled. By the way, L2pkpandey, please do not delete sourced and cited information in the article without discussing first on the article talk page.--Smerus (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L2pkpandey.--Smerus (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article on promotional event, using a remarkably expansive interpretation of "child prodigy" which properly means a child who can do as well as an adult, , but a child who can do something as well as an adult expert . It does not appear to me that any of the people listed in the article come anywhere near qualifying, which makes the hwole thing a PR stunt. The only sources likel yto report such stunts are PR themselves, because there is no reason any genuine news source would pay the least attention. All newspapers,m even the most reputable, dexcend occasionally to publsihing PR, but most of the ones included here as references are particularly notorious for it. DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: you must be interested to see this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L2pkpandey. GSS ^💬 05:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what you say there does indeed account for it. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & DGG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete the awards dont have significant coverage in reliable sources, I got similar experience with sources like DGG described above. According to their official website, and wikipedia article not clarify the nature of the organization's structure, the source of its funding, its corporate status or the criteria used to assess 'prodigies'. An award for revenue, and publicity for the kids. Non notable though. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find significant coverage about the event itself on independent sources. Then checking what's presented in the article, after discounting the links directly associated with the event and the unrelated academic articles that discuss the scope of the term "child prodigy", I found only links to human interest stories on the kids that won the award. Unsurprisingly, these stories don't touch much on the event itself, focusing instead on the kids. So this is a promotional article on an event that fails WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:01, 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 redirect to The Wall (game show). Sandstein 19:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall (Tamil game show)

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

Basically empty. No meaningful content. The Wall (game show) has covered the subject. Shanze1 (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shanze1 (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to lack of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 14:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wall (game show). Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to The Wall (game show) until there is more to say than what it already says in the parent article. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garg (Gaargya)

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

This article has no indication of notability, and has been tagged as unreferenced for 2 years. I think the intention of the title, which looks like a disambiguation, is to indicate an alternative spelling. If not deleted, the article should be moved to a more appropriate title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A more appropriate title would be Garg (gotra). I don't know anything about notability in the topic area, but quite a few of the incoming links to Garg and Garga are intended for it, so apparently editors have regularly presumed it notable. The article used to have more content in the past, but that got removed, quite rightly, as unreliably sourced, and there was some more content, equally unreliable, in an old revision of Garg [9]. – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lack of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 16:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 14:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references. Also anyone can't add reliable sources because no reference available on the internet for the lead section of article. GargAvinash (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bang Spontaneous Theatre

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

Non notable local theatre group, sourced mostly to IMDB. Mccapra (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can only find passing mentions of it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many of the statements in the article are obviously someone grinding an axe: "many long-time fans of Bang Bang and other regulars stopped coming as they weren't fond of the Heartland folks. ...the sale of the No Exit Cafe was more or less a last nail in the coffin of Bang Bang." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the actual content of the article isn't cited at all. The IMDb citations are mostly there to verify that some of the members of this theater company have appeared in films or television, not to describe their involvement in this theater company. I'm also puzzled by the self-contradictory statement, "Burt Heyman, whose whereabouts are unknown, may still be performing at the Hemingway House with the Hemingway Players." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MOS. IMDb is not a source. Other citations are not up to snuff.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough coverage to meet notability Alex-h (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Youth Parliament – Ukraine

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... Google search on Ukrainian [10] shows a lot of publication about this subject, more than enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. Saying that, the content of the page seem to be promotional and needs to be significantly reduced. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content is unsourced, the list of external links given as references seem to be mostly self-published. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Sandstein 19:40, 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. Lourdes 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Area News Group

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

This article on a small local news publisher survived AfD in 2015 with a ‘no consensus’ result in 2015. I can’t find any reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 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 12:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because I think that it is useful to be able to validate the existence and respectability of news sources, because some of the component papers are older than the group, and because I have added sourcing from regional dailies Boston Globe, The Sun (Lowell) and New Hampshire Union Leader.IceFishing (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Totally not notable. Two of the articles added by IceFishing seem to be about how their news papers ran something that helped someone get a spleen or something. I wouldn't call that worthy of the parent company the article is about being notable. There isn't automatic notability by association. Same goes for two of the news papers having a supposedly popular column. That might make them (questionably) notable, but it doesn't by proxy make their parent company notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IceFishing. Useful and encyclopedic, and considerably more sensible than having separate articles for each of these three newspapers. -- Visviva (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visviva:, except none of the three news papers have their own article. Probably because they aren't notable either. They are listed here, but it just forwards back to the Area News Group article. Which makes me think they had articles at one point that where removed for lack of notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IceFishing (talk · contribs); see also draft notability criteria for newspapers here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability. Please note, I have expanded the article a great deal with citations from other (independently owned) newspapers. These include coverage of two ownership changes, a lawsuit around conflict of interest, and impact of the paper's coverage on other local media and local politics. I found these through my library's subscription to NewsBank, so they are not available online for easy review, but your library may also have this subscription. The article was borderline when nominated, but I think with this expansion it's a clear "keep". I would welcome assistance in better organizing the info I've added, though. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:37, 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 merge to Bogie. Sandstein 20:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radial steering truck

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

"somewhat experimental" with patent citations. No reliable secondary sources indicating this topic is notable enough to be worthy of an article of its own. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article is terrible: these are actually pretty standard in current locomotives. That said, I'm not convinced that it needs an article on its own; there's probably some place related to diesel locomitves where it ought to be merged. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merege to Bogie. I note this 1906 journal article states "..the unnecessarily complicated radial bogie truck now in use on the London and North-Western Railway" so it has clearly been around for some time.----Pontificalibus 15:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 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 04:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. But the article does lack references.I'm deleting the unsourced parts until they are properly sourced per WP:BLP. Sandstein 19:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K-Reen

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

Non notable rapper and singer who falls short of both WP:GNG & WP:MUSICBIO Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has four (4) albums, her very own record label, and some of her songs were included on soundtracks. Seems pretty notable to me. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I think it was ok to delete the album by her a few AfDs above, K-Reen is a superstar in French Guiana. She's won Lindor Awards, which is the Grammy's of French Guiana. I don't expect anyone to know that _ since I'm sure we don't have many editors from French Guiana, but, she is indeed notable and passes WP:MUSIC. Check out her French Wikipedia article for sources. Missvain (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Missvain. Her French Wikipedia article appears to have enough sources to suggest that this meets the significant coverage requirement of the WP:GNG policy. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete having sources on another project doesn't mean she's notable if those sources aren't independent, reliable coverage. Out of a random sampling of 20 or so, 0 meet this criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A quick google search reveals many sources about them and their records. Bobherry Talk Edits 14:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, passes WP:MUSIC Jessamyn (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Choudhary

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

A student union councillor who does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. The article was recently deleted under CSD A7 as a self-written vanity page and was immediately recreated by another user. Three of the five cited references merely mention the subject's name as one of the elected student union councillors. The fourth reference from livehindustan.com is a short blurb by the paper congratulating "our correspondent Vaibhav Choudhary" on his appointment as Sports President of Delhi University, and is neither independent nor in-depth coverage. I am however unable to access the fifth reference from amarujala.com. My attempts to find further coverage on the subject only came up with more short blurbs mentioning Vaibhav Choudhary's name as one of the elected student union councillors, and nothing more. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough, just a Run of the mill union leader -- SouravDas1998^{t@lk to me?} 14:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Tayi Arajakate (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedy deleted this yesterday as an A7 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Jim Hi. Just out of curiosity (nothing to do with this discussion), when an admin deleted a page in mainspace, does it get included in their watchlist automatically? —usernamekiran (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I really want to say "per Jimfbleak", but I cant for obvious reason. Even though Delhi University Students' Union is a notable organisation, it is not a government body, office, or organisation. Getting elected as head of that organisation doesnt make the subject notable per notability guidelines for politicians. Talking about general notability guidelines, the subject doesnt pass them either - as mentioned in the nomination, and in other comments, the subject lacks significant coverage. Talking about Amar Ujala, I dont know about the print media, but the online version is like a tabloid. They cover, and spice up almost every topic. I havent read the source in discussion, but Amar Ujala online edition should not be considered for establishing a subject's notability. Other sources have been explained in the nomination. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maudine Ormsby

AfDs for this article:

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

Interesting story; WP:1E at best, not WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Ohio State University. BD2412 T 21:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Local campus lore, hardly notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Wm335td (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I'm not sure it's even notable enough to warrant a merge here. If the only sources are the university website and the university newspaper (effectively a primary source), I just can't believe that it's notable enough to even be mentioned on Wikipedia. We have expectations for article content that does expect reliable sourcing for everything except the trivial. A legend that could "enhance the mystique" of the school should require secondary sourcing, IMHO. Waggie (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not sufficient and notable enough for a stand alone articleGeorgiamarlins (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable bovine prank. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Steinberg, Neil (1992). If at All Possible, Involve a Cow: The Book of College Pranks. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 202–203. ISBN 0-312-07810-2. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
Gurvis, Sandra (2011) [2007]. Ohio Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff (2 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Morris Communications. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-7627-6408-2. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
Nash, Bruce; Zullo, Allan (1986). Football Hall of Shame. New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-74551-4. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
Porter, Philip W. (1926-11-10). "Maudine Ormsby article". D. Appleton & Company. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
Baumann, James A. (1997). Ohio Cum Laude: The Whole Ohio College Catalogue. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press. ISBN 978-1-882203-11-6. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
"Maudine Ormsby". The Agricultural Student. 30 (1). Ohio State University: 174. October 1923. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
"Holstein Cow Makes Milk and Butter Record: 2225 Pounds of Milk and 96.5 Pounds Butter in 30 Days Official". Lancaster Eagle-Gazette. 1924-05-23. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Champs to Pose for Visitors". Hamilton Evening Journal. 1925-01-31. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Frank O. Lowden With Ohio Maudine Ormsby". Chillicothe Gazette. 1925-02-12. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Holstein Cow Named Queen of Homecoming". Oakland Tribune. Associated Press. 1926-11-06. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Cow Can't Attend University Ball: Defeats Ohio State Co-Eds in Popularity Vote, But Is Barred". The Baltimore Sun. Associated Press. 1926-11-11. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Meet Maudine! She's College Beauty Queen". Lansing State Journal. 1926-11-12. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Ohio State College Votes Cow as Queen of Campus Beauties". The Capital Times. 1926-11-13. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Maudine Ormsby Will Not be Beauty Queen". The Daily Utah Chronicle. 1927-11-24. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Maudine Ormsby, the only cow to gain immortal fame at Ohio State university, will have her picture painted". Coshocton Tribune. 1927-05-28. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.

Sources with quotes

Steinberg, Neil (1992). If at All Possible, Involve a Cow: The Book of College Pranks. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 202–203. ISBN 0-312-07810-2. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The book notes on page 201:
Big Midwestern universities have their roots in agricultural land grants, and take their cows more seriously. A classic cow prank that crops up at Ag schools, from time to time, is a heifer being elected homecoming queen.
The book notes on page 202:
A prime representative of the genre is the case of Maudine Ormsby, homecoming queen of 1926 at Ohio State University. Supported by the College of Agriculture, Ormsby, a prize Holstein, initially placed a respectable second.
The homecoming committee learned of Maudine's species during a check of the student directory, to contact the homecoming candidates for picture-taking purposes.
Maudine was disqualified from the final balloting for the crime of being a cow (how thankful we should all be that such appalling speciesism would never be tolerated on today's enlightened campuses). The Ag students raised a protest, but what saved their cause was all the human candidates were disqualified owing to dishonest campaign tactics. That left Maudine, who was the wrong phylum, but at least had not cheated. The homecoming committee decided to chose a queen at a special session. Amazingly, they threw up their hands and selected Maudine.
The ball back in their court, Ag college officials had to nix the participation of Maudine in the parade festivities, since the cow—which had set world records in milk production—was too valuable to parade around. Her place in the homecoming procession was taken by two undergraduates inside a cow outfit. There was an attempt to inject some human cheesecake into the parade by naming a certain Rosalind Morrison as the unofficial queen. But she had her pride, and refused. "It was an insult to be beat out by a cow that I refused to accept any of the honors at all," she said, 30 years after the fact.
The book further notes:
Maudine was not the last barnyard creature bedecked with human honors at OSU. In 1940, when all the candidates for May Queen were eliminated on technicalities, the OSU May Queen was a mare named Jean Scot.
Gurvis, Sandra (2011) [2007]. Ohio Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff (2 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Morris Communications. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-7627-6408-2. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The book notes:
You're lucky you weren't around during the reign of Maudine Ormsby. The 1925 Ohio State University Monthly anointed her “the latest star in the Milky way . . . she has represented Ohio State University . . . where she has received honors galore.” She also packed 'em in with record crowds during the annual Farmer's Week, where five thousand “paid her tribute,” according to the magazine. Is it any wonder that Maudine was elected Homecoming Queen by ardent student fans in the fall of the following year? Never mind that Maudine had four legs instead of two, and at about 1,200 or so pounds (give or take a couple hundred either way), she was a little plus-sized, even for her height. Oh, and did we mention that Maudine Ormsby was a Holstein cow? Yet Maudine was chosen queen by an overwhelming margin, with votes exceeding the actual number of students enrolled at the university, according to some accounts. The first runner-up, Rosalind Morrison (later Mrs. W. F. Strapp) felt she'd been handed a bum steer and “refused to accept any of the honors at all,” as she stated in records maintained by the OSU Archives. “It was quite a blow to all the candidates,” although in later years, it had “become quite a joke.” ...
the Stories vary as to what actually transpired, but Maudine was the overwhelming choice of students in the College of Agriculture. Along with being four-year champion, she was the “youngest heifer in the world to ... According to the archives' records, Maudine initially came in second. But the Homecoming Committee got the cow tip after they checked the student directory and couldn't locate her or her photo. However, other irregularities in the election resulted in the divine bovine's catapult to homecoming royalty. When they heard about her win, Maudine's handlers in the College of Agriculture had a, er, cow. They feared the coronation might curdle her milk, or that she might “zig” when she should “zag” and trample a few revelers. So although she was honored at the Homecoming Parade—two boys in a cow costume rode the float and attended other events—she stayed in the barn during the dance, game, and other hoopla. Things quickly turned into cow patties after that. Ohio State lost the game to their archrival Michigan by one point, their only defeat of the year, knocking them out of the Big Ten title. By 1929 Maudine had developed brucellosis, a contagious bacterial infection. So like Mary, Queen of Scots, and Charles I of England before her, she became a victim of regicide. Still, her saga lives on, to the udder amusement of new generations of students at Ohio State.
Nash, Bruce; Zullo, Allan (1986). Football Hall of Shame. New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-74551-4. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The book notes:
Maudine Ormsby
Homecoming Queen ■ Ohio State ■ Nov. 12, 1926

Maudine Ormsby was the ugliest homecoming queen ever elected.
She had a long, straight nose with wide nostrils, big ears that she could wiggle, teeth the size of piano keys, broad but bony hips, and widely bowed ribs. And was she fat! She stood only five feet tall and had a girth to match. She weighed half a ton.
Maudine, you see, was a cow. The Ohio State student body elected a pure-bred, prize-winning Holstein their 1926 homecoming queen.
When it was time for the school to choose a queen, the fraternities and sororities nominated their own candidates. But the independent students felt they had been shunned, so they decided to put up their own candidate. They picked Maudine. She sure wasn't pretty, but she did have a nice disposition and a helluva set of jugs. She immediately gained the support of the College of Agriculture.
Although the university enrollment totaled only 9,000 back then, more than 13,000 ballots were cast—the majority for Maudine. (She beat out such write-in contenders as evangelist Aimee McPherson, Queen Mary, Helen of Troy, and Sophie Tucker.)
Some of her legitimate two-legged opponents protested the rigged election, but the homecoming committee decided to milk the prank for all it was worth, and allowed Maudine to wear her crown.
Maudine's chaperones wouldn't permit her to appear in all the homecoming festivities because, after all, she was only four years old. However, for the Ohio State homecoding parade, she did ride majestically in a horse-drawn float.
Unfortunately, Maudine failed to inspire the football team. It lost to Michigan—to the udder disappointment of Ohio State fans.
Porter, Philip W. (1926-11-10). "Maudine Ormsby article". D. Appleton & Company. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The article notes:
Columbus, O., Nov. 10—Maudine Ormsby, the only cow ever elected queen of a college homecoming festival, was forbidden to ascend the throne today. The spokesman for the queen announced tonight that her majesty would be unable to undergo the rigors of the alumni festivities at Ohio State university Friday night, on the eve of the Ohio State Michigan football classic. “It's no place for a cow,” declared Prof. Carl W. Gay, head of the department of animal husbandry. Prof. Schuyler M. Salisbury of the same department, grand vizier and advisor to the queen, agreed that Maudine's nervous system might be so upset that almost anything might happen. Furthermore, decided the spokesmen, Maudine is professionally engaged in production of milk, high in butter fat, which already has won her four world's records, and queening would seriously interfere with the vitamins. She is barred for professionalism, it Seems. Maudine's sudden abdication, after four days of red hot controversy, came as a climax of a climax of a weird series of campus events reminiscent of the old Siwash tales. A crooked election, outcries of serious minded professors who wished to save the university from disgrace, loud guffaws by those who visioned a sad-eyed cow at an alumni dance jamboree, and much excited comment by virtually everyone in the university district, has produced a sensation. There has been more talk around Ohio State this week regarding whether Maudine was to serve as queen in person than about how hard it is to get a ticket for Saturday's game, and that's plenty. Leroy Morris, editor of the Sun Dial, humorous monthly, student chairman of the homecoming celebration, confronted with the news that Maudinewas ineligible, announced that there would be a cow on hand at the alumni dance neverthless, Maudine or no Maudine. He refuses to say whether he would borrow a cow from a farmer or build one of papier-mache. At any rate, Morris has a perfectly good cashable silver cup to be awarded to the homecoming queen. Perhaps it will be placed against the royal bank account to buy her hay. The ultimatum of the spokesman for the queen came after a hectic day at the university. Prof. Salisbury protested to Prof. Gay, and Prof. Gay appealed to Dean Alfred Vivian of the college of agriculture for a ruling, and the matter even reached the office of President George W. Rightmire, who refused to comment. The Boost Ohio committee devoted much time at its afternoon meeting today to the question of divine right and the royal succession. It all began last week, when entries rolled in for the annual election for queen.
Baumann, James A. (1997). Ohio Cum Laude: The Whole Ohio College Catalogue. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press. ISBN 978-1-882203-11-6. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The book notes:
For some, the idea of crowing a Homecoming Queen each fall is an antiquated and objectifying notion that falls somewhere in- between presidential politics and beauty pageants. Perhaps that was the mindset of the group of Ohio State agriculture students who, in 1926, nominated one of their own for the Homecoming court. The only thing they neglected to mention was that their nominee, Maudine Ormsby, was the dean's pet cow. Maudine' s bovine background never came up until just before the ceremonies when the Homecoming committee members were trying to round up all the candidates for a photograph. Only then did it become known that no tiara was going to fit this queen. Flustered, the committee tried to disqualify Maudine. But when they later discovered all the other candidates had illegally campaigned for the Homecoming honor, the committee had no choice but to name Maudine the winner. For the parade she was placed atop a flatbed truck along with her escort (decked out in a spotless white dairy uniform) , and for one j- day, everyone had to kowtow to Queen Maudine.
"Maudine Ormsby". The Agricultural Student. 30 (1). Ohio State University: 174. October 1923. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The article notes:
Ohio Maudine Ormsby, a Holstein heifer, owned by the Ohio State University, has just completed a seven day test record of 431.4 pounds of milk and 23.33 pounds of butter. This heifer made the record at 21 months and seven days of age, which, so far as the Department of Animal Husbandry can learn, is a new record for heifers of this age in Ohio, and second in the United States.
The university should feel a sense of pride in this achievement, due to the fact that the mother and grandmother of this heifer, as well as the heifer herself, were all bred by the university. She is an excellent individual, having won second at the Ohio State Fair, and seventh at the National Dairy Show. She is now milking 70 pounds per day with a test of four percent butter fat.
During the test the heifer was fed and milked by Carroll E. Eby, Columbus, a junior in the College of Agriculture.
"Holstein Cow Makes Milk and Butter Record: 2225 Pounds of Milk and 96.5 Pounds Butter in 30 Days Official". Lancaster Eagle-Gazette. 1924-05-23. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
A world's milk production record has been broken by a university Holstein cow.
Ohio Maudine Ormaby, a Holstein-Friesian heifer, bred and owned by Ohio State university, just finished a 30 day official record of 2223 pounds of milk and 96.5 pounds of butter, which according to available records, is the world's record for a yearling and the state record for 30 days milk production for two year olds.
Ohio Maudine Ormsby freshened at 21 1/2 months and produced more than 5000 pounds of milk before she was two years old. This is more milk than the average Ohio milk cow produces in an entire year, said Prof. C. T. Conklin, in charge of the dairy at the university farm.
Five generations of university breeding on the maternal side of her pedigree.
"Champs to Pose for Visitors". Hamilton Evening Journal. 1925-01-31. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Ohio Maudine Ormsby is a Holstein, and the fifth generation in the university's best Holstein stock. Ten years ago Farmers' week visitors saw Maudine Ormsby's granddam, Ohio Colontha Rakker (?), a state champion who produced, in her lifetime, 6000 pounds of butter and about three thousand dollars worth of calves.
"Frank O. Lowden With Ohio Maudine Ormsby". Chillicothe Gazette. 1925-02-12. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Former Governor Frank O. Lowden, of Illinois, famous farmer-legislator, pictured above with "Ohio Maudine Ormsby," prize cow of Ohio State University, in an address there told the students of "The Farmer and His Organizations," "Ohio Maudine" is of Holstein stock and has produced the world's record of 22,000 pounds of milk, plus 920 pounds of butter.
The article contains a photo of Maudine Ormsby with the former governor that will become a public domain photo on 1 January 2021 according to my reading of public domain in the United States. There is another higher quality 1925 photo of Maudine Ormsby with the governor on Flickr here that will also become a public domain photo on 1 January 2021.
"Holstein Cow Named Queen of Homecoming". Oakland Tribune. Associated Press. 1926-11-06. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Nominated on a ticket with ten popular Ohio State University girls, Ohio Maudine Ormsby, thoroughbred Holstein cow, was elected "home-coming queen" for the Michigan game November 13. Maudine's vote far exceeded the total cast for the other candidates.
"Cow Can't Attend University Ball: Defeats Ohio State Co-Eds in Popularity Vote, But Is Barred". The Baltimore Sun. Associated Press. 1926-11-11. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
The cow may be queen of the barnyard, but the dignity of Ohio State University can't countenance the throne being moved to the ballroom. So the placid-faced Ohio Maudine Ormsby, champion milk giver, will not amble into the crystal slipper ballroom Friday night to be crowned queen of the University Homecoming Festival.
Maudine recently defeated ten popular coeds in balloting to choose a queen for the Homecoming Festival. Students had prepared for the coronation—with the exception of asking the cow and the Animal Husbandry Department. Department officials answered "No" today with some asperity.
"Meet Maudine! She's College Beauty Queen". Lansing State Journal. 1926-11-12. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Students of Ohio State University at Columbus might with all propriety have chosen Miss Katherine Porter, left, as their beauty queen. Few, if any, would have criticized had they picked Miss Margery Rutledge, right. Equally unanimous might have been a vote in favor of Miss Willeen Ludwig, below. But did any of these three exemplars of pulchritude win? No—not a bit of it. The winner, reader, was lovely Maudine Ormsby, whose map appears in the center. Maudine is the prize cow of the university's agriculture department.
The article contains photos of Maudine Ormsby and other contenders that will become public domain photos on 1 January 2022 according to my reading of public domain in the United States.
"Ohio State College Votes Cow as Queen of Campus Beauties". The Capital Times. 1926-11-13. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
The farm candidate, according to the consensus rode into office upon the unpopularity of the Law school. In the past the lawyers have always elected their candidate, because they voted as a unit.
Miss Ormsby was nominated easily, but her name was left off the ballot because she wasn't listed in the student directory. Her followers wrote in her name, however. The lawyers in their zeal to win, had 1,000 fake ballots printed, rivals charg. Then the journalism students rushed to their print shop and turned out another 2,000 fake tickets, so reports to. Another faction managed, rumor says, to steal 1,500 regulation ballots and fill them out for their girl. All the illegal ballots were thrown out.
Maudine drew 500 votes.
The article contains photos of Maudine Ormsby and other contenders that will become public domain photos on 1 January 2022 according to my reading of public domain in the United States.
"Maudine Ormsby Will Not be Beauty Queen". The Daily Utah Chronicle. 1927-11-24. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Last year the election returns were thrown out because of crooked politics, and a cow, Maudine Ormsby, of the college of agriculture, was accorded the honor and crowned in the stadium. This year a committee of judges, instead of the entire campus, will select the beauty queen and she will be a human, co-ed student, they say.
"Maudine Ormsby, the only cow to gain immortal fame at Ohio State university, will have her picture painted". Coshocton Tribune. 1927-05-28. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Maudine Ormsby, the only cow to gain immortal fame at Ohio State university, will have her picture painted, if the reports issued at the art department of the university are true.
Miss Ormsby will undergo the brush at the hands of Miss Yeteve Smith, of Columbus. The finished work will be a feature attraction of the clubroom at the College of Agriculture headquarters, Townshend hall.

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

Cunard (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maudine Ormsby was selected as the homecoming queen of 1926 at Ohio State University. This received significant coverage in books published in 1986 by Pocket Books, in 1992 by St. Martin's Press, and in 2011 by Morris Communications. That the homecoming queen story has been written about in books published 60–85 years after the event occurred strongly establishes that it has "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time".
The 1992 book also notes that Maudine "had set world records in milk production".
A 1925 article in Chillicothe Gazette published a photo of Maudine Ormsby with former Ohio Governor Frank Orren Lowden and says "Maudine is of Holstein stock and has produced the world's record of 22,000 pounds of milk, plus 920 pounds of butter".
A 1926 article published by D. Appleton & Company notes, "Maudine is professionally engaged in production of milk, high in butter fat, which already has won her four world's records".
I oppose a merge to History of Ohio State University since covering Maudine Ormsby's story in that article would be undue weight and since there are enough sources and material about the homecoming queen story and her world records to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and justify a standalone article.
Cunard (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm quite shocked, but Cunard's research was thorough and I do now believe this topic meets WP:GNG. My above delete vote has been struck. It looks like there's WP:SIGCOV here in numerous reliable sources (not just small town and/or college papers, either) that report on a variety of apparently newsworthy events surrounding this one cow. Waggie (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the sources and reconsidering your position, Waggie (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 11:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of environment

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

Unsourced since 2006. Appears to be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TNT. There could well be call for a page on Philosophy of environment (or of environmentalism or similar) if discussed in suitable references, but this is not it. As per nom., this is unsourced, and OR. There is absolutely nothing here that could be kept in the event of creating a new article if anyone ever chose to do so, and this article may hinder any such efforts. WP:TNT pertains. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as word salad. (Further than the basic scientific theory of evolution (notably neo-darwinian, Evolutive Humanism, developed by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould), looks at the necessity for Man of a permanent adaptation of both his organism and his thoughts to his universal environment. I mean, what?) We do have Environmental philosophy, a page that is in not entirely miserable shape, and this article could be made a redirect there, but there isn't any content in this article worth saving. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with prior comments. There might be a notable topic in there somewhere but I think unfortunately the way forward is WP:DYNAMITE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Indonesia President's Cup. Sandstein 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Indonesia President's Cup

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

Football Association of Indonesia decided not to hold the Indonesia President's Cup to focus on the preparation for the 2021 FIFA U-20 World Cup. Sources in Bahasa: [11], [12], [13]. Wira rhea (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nominator hasn't cited any valid reasons for deletion. Just because a tournament allegedly won't happen doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Dougal18 (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Three sources that I provided clearly states it won't happen. For addition, this source cited that Ketua Umum PSSI, Mochamad Iriawan, memastikan bahwa kompetisi Piala Presiden tak akan digelar sebelum Liga 1 2020 bergulir which means PSSI President, Mochamad Iriawan ensured that the Indonesia President's Cup would not be held before the 2020 Liga 1. Wira rhea (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indonesia President's Cup with a note (and sources!) that say the tournament was cancelled and why. Doesn't merit separate article. Giant Snowman 14:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay, maybe all source in Indonesia because it only happens in Indonesia. But with this source from goal.com, even though it's in Bahasa but it's still an international reliable football news website. I already provide the why question in my comment before. Just translate the whole news if you want details. Wira rhea (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought with a group stage draw and Arema "being eliminated in the quarterfinals" included in the article meant it was for keeping. Actual searching reveals it didn't happen so I'm changing my vote to Redirect to Indonesia President's Cup. --Dougal18 (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seemed to be clear unanimous consensus to redirect (other than the delete nomination) - not sure why this got relisted. Probably worth adding the references listed to the redirect target, mentioning that it wasn't held in 2020. Nfitz (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear they cancelled the cup after they held the group stage draw? That might change things in terms of its notability/what we should do here, since they actually took steps to hold the tournament and then cancelled it. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mbasakana

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

Too short, merge into List of islands of Solomon Islands. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we have an article on Malu'u, a village on the coast nearby and mention the island in that, I couldn't find anything on the island.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NGEO - "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable." I'm basing my belief it is populated on using googlemaps to see houses on the island, not fussed to be proven wrong on that. "Too short" doesn't seem like a great rationale for deletion to me, although I would note the second ref appears to locate the place wrongly. If merging I would suggest merge to Malaita Province.Mujinga (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malu'u. I've created an article on the village nearby. This small island only has a line of info available for it in google books, what we have is written in that article. I strongly suggest redirecting now Mujinga.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been written about in Lonely Planet and a couple other books per a simple Google search. English sources aren't easy to come by, but it's clearly an island on which people live and we do function as a gazetteer. SportingFlyer T·C 09:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason given for deletion. Stubs are perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the first point of WP:WHYN? “If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.” 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never actually seen that at a deletion discussion before, but we tend to keep stubs of geographic places, especially considering this one could be expanded a bit even though online sources are sparse. SportingFlyer T·C 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know that "only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject"? Not yet having been written does not equate to cannot be written, although that does seem to be a common misconception. Wikipedia is a work in progress. That's why stubs are valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the most enthusiastic editors here with regard to making this cover the world in as much detail as possible but even I think it makes most sense to mention this tiny island in the nearby village article. If at some point sources become available for it, then write an article on it. 11 years and there is still nothing about it, there is no issue with redirecting it to the bottom of Malu'u. We're ultimately trying to build the highest quality encyclopedia and convey information in the best way possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article is short and needs more information but still satisfies WP:NGEO. Alex-h (talk) 10:03, 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. Sorry for the erroneous third relist. The "keep" opinions do not address the arguments for deletion; they do not discuss why this article is notable or should otherwise be kept. Sandstein 10:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Research – Africa

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

I prodded it with "No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term." Prod was declined, an anon redirected it later, that was reverted. Time for an AfD discussion. What makes this research institute separately notable from its parent company (IBM Research)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on here, User:Piotrus? You nominated this article for deletion like a week ago, I responded. No "prod was declined". Where did that page go? Please resurrect it so that others know that all that legitimately happened.

Now you are nominating it over all again like it is your first time and I never did. This isn't right. I am going to leave this same message at the other two pages where you are doing the identical thing. Yours, 11:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I checked that page, then the auto-generated notice that was left on my Talk page on December 30, 2019, which indicated an objection could be left in the form of an Edit Summary, which I did: "There is just a date and location for this lab at the IBM Research page. There is relevant cited content here. The page is not simply "clutter" to be deleted." Without consensus you then merged the article into IBM Research, which was reverted by another editor, not at all an anonymous user, it was, User:Dicklyon, who has been with the encyclopedia since 2006 and has over 100,000 edits. My original comment stands on its merits. Don't pretend none of this is happening. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiuser100 You seem not to be familiar with WP:DELETION. Prior proposal was WP:PROD, which you challenged, as was your right. I read your edit summary, found it lacking, hence the next step is a discussion at a wider forum (i.e. here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. But that's not what you did, User:Piotrus. Stop being disingenuous - or outright dishonest. You didn't just "go to discussion", as you falsely claim above, you pretended to merge the articles (dishonestly using that term in your edit summaries at those pages), but did not do that. You blanked them, then incorporated absolutely none of their contents at the main IBM Research page. It's all there in the page histories, and confirmed by User:Dicklyon in his post below. In fact, there was less total at the IBM research (where you even deleted helpful preexisting headings there) then before your phony "merges". Which were then reverted, whereupon you have begun a new round of mongering for deletion. You in fact are being completely dishonest here, and must cease it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not such thing. You are apparently also not familiar with the article's history tab, as you confuse actions by some anonymous editor with my actions. Further, you are also not familiar with WP:NPA, since accusing others of dishonesty and such is not nice, and can lead to sanctions. Please learn how the system works before attacking others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little independent coverage, could just be included on parent company's page. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - (Talk) - 12:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Or whatever the proper terminology is. There is valid content at the page. Editor time can be better spent cleaning up gop at "In popular culture" sections or other valuable tasks here than this. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid AfD rationale. AFD WP:NOTAVOTE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. But we need to see a serious merge proposal and discussion first. The previous so-called merge that I reverted was just a delete, with the merge target article getting smaller when 6 other articles were deleted. This was just wrong. If we don't have a sensible merge plan for the more minor sites, keep them. For the major sites like Almaden and Zurich, just keep. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your keep rationale outside 'previous merge had no rationale', which is hardly a valid one...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeking to preempt User:Dicklyon's response here, but users please see my response inserted above to dissimulation from User:Poitrus also inserted above. If I knew how to hyperlink you directly to it, I would. It's hard left, separated by carriage returns. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

`

No indication of independent notability and does not meet NCORP. At minimum should be redirected if not deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (1st choice) per Barkeep as there's nothing here to merge, really, and no history to keep/Merge or Redirect (2nd choice), as applicable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Research – Brazil. Doug Mehus T·C 23:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus not to delete. Discussions about merging, reworking, retitling, etc, can be had outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Sacred Harp music is sung

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

Overly technical WP:NOTHOWTO guides, far too much detail and far too few sources. Most of what needs to be known is already covered at Sacred Harp. Prod declined for no valid reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article Sacred Harp discusses the book and its historic context while this article discusses singing techniques so I don't see any good case for just deleting this. It probably needs a better title, like Characteristics of Sacred Harp Singing. It's not a technical guide and WP:NOTHOWTO does not apply as it's a description of a practice not a manual for doing it. I share concerns about sourcing and possible OR so there is certainly a need to improve this but I don't agree that we're in deletion territory at all. Mccapra (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Does it really need to be spread among four articles though? At the very least I think a merge is in order. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – Prod declined for no valid reason. I declined with this edit summary: "it's not a HOWTO; it's not 'overly technical' but a reasonably well sourced encyclopedic entry; it's part of a set of subject-related articles; this PROD doesn't seem uncontroversial *and* it didn't mention any of WP:SPEEDY; take it to AfD." As for this AfD: I agree that the article may have shortcomings, but that's no reason to delete. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Michael Bednarek: Do you still think a merge would be valid? Sacred Harp already covers most of the major points. I see no reason for all of this to be spread across four articles. I'm a professionally trained musician and even I found this way too technical. Would you accept a merge of the more major points? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure the main article will benefit from merging the relevant parts of three other articles into it. The current arrangement doesn't seem to cry out for some sort of remedy. It's just one of the more esoteric corners of Wikipedia, of which there are many. I won't object to a merge. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Michael Bednarek: It does cry out for a remedy. WP:IINFO is one. Again, does this really need four goddamn articles that are all a blatant how-to guide? It's like having four articles on how to tie your shoes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bit of a moot point by now, but WP:SPEEDY doesn't have any bearing on proposed deletion; it's a separate process. Ibadibam (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Migrate: How Sacred Harp music is sung, Leading Sacred Harp music and Pitching Sacred Harp music have some decent sources but these are mixed in amongst a lot of original research and anecdotal how-to content. The well-sourced parts could be merged into Sacred Harp and the rest of the content migrated to a third-party site like Wikia. Ibadibam (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move to Characteristics of Sacred Harp Singing. This article is well written. The points it makes about traditional European singing music lacking what we today would call proper notation is spot-on. Apparently Sacred Harp is similar. Studies of the unwritten rules of interpretation are encyclopedic. The article is not a how-to-guide. As a side note as to the usefulness of this content, I would be pleased if someone added some similar discussion of the non-written tradition to Hymnody of continental Europe. In terms of technicality, it is more understandable than the continental Europe article. There is going to be technical terms due to the nature of the topic. There is no way around that. As far as dotting/lilting goes, this is another issue of interpretation that was not written in older singing musical notation. Exactly how to reproduce period music is a scholarly, encyclopedia-worthy topic. This is not really a how-to article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pitching Sacred Harp music

Yes, deletion, merger, or using some more abstract category should be considered. In the meantime, I added a couple sentences to this article. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 20:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Blun

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

Fails WP:GNG, some minor passing references but nothing that establishes notability Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial sources on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article instance is based on the German article. It is worth noting that the Russian-language article is far more detailed (and lists a number of sources which I have not yet appraised). Blun is also mentioned in books covering various points, particularly in 1937 [14] and the 1940s, so was clearly acting as an Intelligence conduit, but it remains open whether this amounts to specific notability. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was widely cited journalist in the interwar period, and wrote at least one book L'Allemagne mise a nu (La nouvelle Soc. d'Edition, Paris,. 1927, 183 p.) The Observer described it as being about "the German attitude toward foreign politics". I added a book he wrote and a couple of sources.IceFishing (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ok but does that meet WP:NAUTHOR? I don't think so. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about this page is that it's meant to be a discussion to which we contribute with the goal of figuring out how notable a topic is. Publishing a book of which note was taken, having pages on the Russian and French Wikipedias, and getting so many hits in searches in books and articles about espionage in the World War II era, are all indications that he is probably notable. With Blun, even a simple google search gets some interesting hits, like this CIA.gov file: [15]/html/v13i3a05p_0001.htm].IceFishing (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That CIA book was already there as a ref when I put this up for AFD. The relevant criteria for WP:GNG is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I would argue that all the coverage is just trivial passing mentions.Mztourist (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would appear to meet WP:GNG. Clearly a very senior foreign correspondent in Berlin at the time and later a resistance leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides his interwar career as a journalist, he later became the leader of a resistance group and was among the few people to survive the third reich's purge of the 'red orchestra' - perhaps the largest and most notable clandestine network working against the nazi regime. Definitely noteworthy enough in my book, though this page does definitely need an overhaul. More sources could definitely flesh this article out. Goodposts (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added some changes to the article - found references to him in the archives of the newspaper for which he worked, as well as by Russian publications detailing Soviet spy activities during WW2. He appears to have continued being a renowned author at least up until the mid 50s, and his spy career extends to serving many different countries. Only one source found on the date of death, though, and it pegs him as dying at the age of 106 - not very likely, though plausible for a Swiss/French resident. Goodposts (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As leader of a resistance group he is likely to be notable. The article needs expansion to show what he actually did: the content is rather thin at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough sources that he passes GNG. An interesting life. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources in the current version of the article combined with those in other language wikis show that they meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep - there are many sources that prove the article is notable, so Mr. Blun is worthy of an article. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 01:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; the article has been improved tremendously since nomination. Well done. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus for a specific outcome has occurred in this discussion. This discussion is being closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination, per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Greif

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

WP:BLP of a high school teacher, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG. The notability claim here is that he won awards, but neither of them are "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have been covered by real media -- but the only references here are primary sources which are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is listed in the academic deletion discussion list, but WP:PROF does not really apply to him; I think, for high school teachers, all we have to go on is WP:GNG. So it's not the level of the awards that we should be looking at, but their coverage. I've added more and more-independent sources, most of them with in-depth coverage (the CBC one is not in-depth). I think it now shows that he passes that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references you've added include a non-independent source (Ontario College of Teachers) that is not support for notability because he's directly affiliated with it; two glancing mentions of his existence in sources whose primary subjects are other people, and thus don't speak to Mel Greif's notability as they aren't about Mel Greif; and a 79-word blurb that is not substantive. The only source you've added that's actually starting to get us somewhere is the Globe and Mail piece, but that doesn't get us to the finish line all by itself if it's the only substantive and reliable source about Mel Greif that can be shown. GNG is not just "content can be found on the web with his name in it": it requires the sources to be independent of him, deprecating the self-published content of directly affiliated organizations; and it requires the sources to be about him, deprecating brief mentions of his name in sources whose primary subjects are other things or people who aren't him; and it requires the sources to be substantive coverage, deprecating short blurbs. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When all teachers in the entire province of Ontario belong to an organization, his membership in it is de minimis compared to the prominence of coverage they have given to him. It's as if you were saying that we could not use any US-based newspaper to source stories about citizens of the US, because the sources are from a group the subjects belong to. It's taking the rules as more important than the intent behind the rules, and then greatly exaggerating parts of those rules that are disconnected from that intent. Additionally, the Spacing magazine coverage is primary only for the claim that he was given the Jacobs Prize; everything else in its (substantive) article about him is secondary. We don't pretend that in-depth magazine articles about a subject are unusable merely because the magazine also gave him a prize as well as writing an in-depth article about him; the prize plus the article is more than, not less than, the article would be without the prize. And for the part that the article is not secondary for, the prize itself, we have another source as well. And when you write "that can be shown", you are incorrect, unless that was an inaccurate way of writing "that has been shown", because more can be shown than already had been. In particular, he is also covered in non-trivial detail in the 2016 Encyclopedia of Bohemian and Czech-American Biography. (I didn't find this earlier because it uses a different form of his first name. And it is self-published, but nevertheless looks authoritative.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's absolutely nothing like saying that "we could not use any US-based newspaper to source stories about citizens of the US" — it's like saying that we can't use a non-media organization's own self-published blog content about its own members as a priori evidence of those members' notability to the world at large, which is not the same thing as deprecating real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in this article is remotely notable. Dorama285 19:34, 07 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that word means what you think it means. Notability, on Wikipedia, is almost completely unrelated to significance, and is about available sourcing, not the contents of the article. You appear to be trying to say that nothing in the article is significant, but that's not what we're deciding here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been shown that he's notable in the "available sourcing" sense, either. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 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 2007 Atlantic hurricane season. Sandstein 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Karen (2007)

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

No land areas affected. Does this really need an article? Fails WP:NOTABILITY, merge with 2007 AHS. Java Hurricane 08:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as it would be notable enough for 2007 AHS but as per WP:LASTING it is not notable enough for its own article. In fact, WP:LASTING talks about this exact situation, where a storm or earthquake with no lasting damage is not notable. GoodCrossing (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2007 Atlantic hurricane season Bobherry Talk Edits 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of this is the same as Danielle 04 just as a heads up. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mine as well. See my reply to your message on Danielle. -- Java Hurricane 03:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary sources for this as well. -- Java Hurricane 04:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I don't particularly agree with the notion a storm is non-notable unless it causes damage or acts as a precedent to some other event, but it does appear to be a correct interpretation of WP:EFFECT, and therefore merging is the sensible course of action. PK650 (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as a good article should this first be considered at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment before afd? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Historical precedent suggests otherwise. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The coverage must be considered coming from independent sources, and so the consensus seems to be that the article does not fail WP:GNG for that reason. There is clearly no consensus to delete but several editors suggest a merge to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. Before such a merger is carried out is should be discussed at that talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Danielle (2004)

AfDs for this article:

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

No damages, no fatalities, fails WP:NOTABILITY. Merge with 2004 AHS. 14 years have passed since the previous AFD, and notability guidelines have since become stricter. -- Java Hurricane 08:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season Bobherry Talk Edits 14:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we do not set our own notability policy in regards to how many people have to die or how many properties have to be destroyed for an incident to merit a standalone article. If that was the case many articles would not exist or we would be having any article based on our own biased personal taste. We use our notability guidelines to determine whether an article deserves a standalone article. The incident received wide coverage from plenty of reliable secondary sources, and notability is not temporary. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate how it fails WP:N? I have my own thoughts on this matter (though quite frankly AFD isn't the appropriate place for this unless things have changed radically since I paid serious attention) but I want to have this discussion first. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this caused no damage anywhere and was not meteorologically important either. Since Wikipedia is not Hurricane Wiki, Danielle should not have an article as it is not notable enough. -- Java Hurricane 03:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked for sources on Google, but no news outlets or reporters had information for the storm. I only found some scientific sites discussing imagery and some Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki pages. Clearly we don't have enough secondary sources for this storm. -- Java Hurricane 04:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "no damage" and "not meteorologically important" is not a valid reason for removal (and I'd argue the reverse is true) for reasons I can elaborate on. As for the issue of secondary sources, it's somewhat of a trap. There are plenty of secondary sources available just because most hurricanes in this part of the world starting in the 90s got some coverage while the storm was active, so technically you are incorrect. I should also note that I'd argue it is false to say "notability guidelines have become stricter" as someone who has been editing for 12 years and has a good idea what Wikipedia was like in the couple years before that. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't discount the fact that the article is based on 10 sources, all of which are from the NHC. -- Java Hurricane 04:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that all 10 sources come from the NHC is a somewhat arbitrary decision. If a few news sources were introduces in replace of some of the info that the NHC also provided, it'd by a very literal definition make this article pass WP:N instead of not passing it otherwise. In reality I don't think what types of sources are included makes a difference here when said sources provide the same information, so I'd argue evaluate the subject. Of course, that makes basically every tropical cyclone eligible for an article, which for reaosns I'll explain later on is a mistake, and is also why I think WP:N in this project is often a trap. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem being that no news/independent sources could be found for this page. -- Java Hurricane 06:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Google Algorithms have gotten worse over the last few years but I've been doing this long enough to know that's false as with the case of any modern day tropical cyclone. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 08:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"no independent sources" is not valid as a complaint here. The hurricane itself is not a commercial entity benefiting from promotional coverage in Wikipedia. The NHC, whatever that is, is entirely separate from the hurricane itself. --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, nom. I've overlooked the WP:MUSTBEDEATHSTOBENOTABLE guideline. The Encyclopedia of Hurricanes has significant coverage. [16]Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season - There's no evidence of WP:LASTING notability (and, by the way, LASTING literally gives non-destructive storms as their example of not having lasting notability:
Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections. For example, Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are notable by these standards. A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable.

Saying "notability is not temporary" confuses the issue. Even if there is "coverage from reliable secondary sources," if those sources never indicated the event was likely to have lasting effects, the event never established lasting notability in the first place. Coverage in secondary sources of a storm that sat in the ocean and did nothing, does not establish lasting notability. Temporary attention doesn't create notability, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.

Also, Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Hurricanes. I would expect a literal hurricane encyclopedia to have coverage of literally every hurricane in it, and if inclusion in such a thing was the standard for including hurricanes, literally every hurricane ever would automatically be notable here. That can't be the standard, right? Shelbystripes (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of leads to my actual opinion on this matter in general. Every hurricane deserves some sort of mention on Wikipedia; the question is whether there's enough content for a stand alone article or it is better suited for the respective seasonal page. A matter that at least use to be outside the scope of the AFD. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question of when a hurricane warrants its own page is one of expected or demonstrated notability. In this case, we already have 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, which is an adequate place to recommend merging content from this page. It's not outside the scope of AfD to recommend merging content from a non-notable topic, into a page on a larger topic where it fits. That’s always been within the scope of the AfD process. And until people stop making separate articles for non-notable weather events, AfD will continue to be for that, I’m sure. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although there's some possibility it could be merged later. There is no way this should be outright deleted, as the deletion nominator i think knew. Because obviously merging to the year list-article is superior. We are obligated to seek alternatives to deletion and here there is this good option. So it should not have been nominated for deletion. A merger proposal could be made at the Talk page of the year article, with proper notice at the subject article. However, sources seem substantial.

Not specifically about this deletion proposal, I think the point of AFDs is often to run up a personal score of articles deleted. And I tend to dislike repeated deletion proposals; the first AFD though a long time ago settled the issue by "Keep" decision well enough. --Doncram (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you do agree with merge as a solution? It sounds like your only objection to merge as a solution isn’t the result but the possibility of it happening via AfD. It would be helpful if you’d say more clearly that you agree “merge” as acceptable an end result, since it is a possible result here. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now more clearly:

no I do not agree that merge is necessarily okay. There seems to be misunderstanding and/or different perspectives becoming apparent here. I tend to think maybe all named hurricanes covered by NHC (which appears to be objective, independent, unreproachable source, part of NASA) are in fact Wikipedia notable. Also there is apparently coverage of this one in particular. And the complaint above that the coverage is "not independent" is invalid: the hurricane is not commercial entity or any other kind of entity benefiting from promotion. The hurricane itself is not the source of any information.
I agree with User:Yellow Evan's comments above that deletion reasons of " "no damage" and "not meteorologically important" is not a valid reason for removal".
There is assertion above by Shelbystripes that "Also, Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Hurricanes. I would expect a literal hurricane encyclopedia to have coverage of literally every hurricane in it, and if inclusion in such a thing was the standard for including hurricanes, literally every hurricane ever would automatically be notable here. That can't be the standard, right?" However, it seems to me that Wikipedia could indeed properly choose to be the definitive source of info on hurricanes. Wikipedia has famously subsumed many many small encyclopedias. There is guideline or essay wp:NOTPAPER about how we are not at all limited by size reasons. I like that Shelbystripes is thinking and reasoning, and that this discussion is all in good faith, but it seems to me that Wikipedia could indeed cover all hurricanes including this one. This AFD is not the place to come to some new notability standard for hurricanes. Perhaps a discussion at a Weather wikiproject if there is one is warranted.
I do grant that Wikipedia covering all hurricanes does not require having a separate article for each one; coverage of some/many could possibly best be done by redirects to list-article rows. However in this case the article size is much greater than can reasonably be compressed into one row, so it is fine/good that it is separate. It seems to meet GNG and there is no question whether an encyclopedic article can be written about it, because to me it is clearly a good encyclopedic article.
It remains that "Keep" seems to me the best outcome of this AFD, and a merger proposal can be discussed elsewhere (not on basis of GNG which I tend to think is met here, but potentially on basis of editorial choice to use list-article rows instead perhaps, although so far I think in this case that separate is better). And there can be discussion elsewhere of what is current general treatment of hurricanes and/or whether that should be changed.

sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. Doncram above is correct in two ways: first in reasoning that all officially classified tropical cyclones are notable, and second in recognizing that covering a topic on does not necessarily mean assigning it a standalone page. Relegating inconsequential storms to sections in their respective seasonal articles has been common practice since Wikipedia's early days. This article is built on a foundation of repetition, jargon, and meteorological minutiae, which could reasonably be condensed to one or two paragraphs without compromising the reader's understanding of the storm. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. See no problems with merging to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season if topic editors believe that's the best approach -- although FWIW, it seems like there's plenty here to support a stand-alone article. Objections to Wikipedia coverage of "minutiae" are problematic; we should always endeavor to be as thorough and precise in our coverage as circumstances permit. -- Visviva (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the storm has no notable land impacts or important meteorological records. Additionally, it did only last for a week. If there were reported impacts, I would be inclined to say keep, but there aren't any in this case. Given that the season article isn't incredibly large, I am going to have to say merge on this one. This article could easily be condensed down without the reader losing any vital information. Noah^Talk 02:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per Juliancolton's comment. Sandstein 19:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002)

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

With only minimal damage and 3 deaths, this article fails WP:NOTABILITY. In fact, quite a few storms with more damage don't have articles. I say merge with 2002 Atlantic hurricane season. Java Hurricane 07:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2002 Atlantic hurricane season Bobherry Talk Edits 14:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems strange that the only impact reported in the United States was in New York.Jason Rees (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Nomination is fundamentally flawed. WP:N is being misapplied, since it says nothing about a minimum destruction threshold for meteorological events. "Other storms with more damage don't have articles" is a documented argument to avoid and logical fallacy. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note – additional sources and details on the storm's effects are being added. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is not Hurricane Wiki where every storm should be listed, and the article itself states that the storm caused minimal damage. -- Java Hurricane 03:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: This makes no sense. Notability is explicitly not the same as importance, and you can't invoke the concept to uphold your own personal feelings about tropical cyclone significance. I've added multiple new sources detailing effects in multiple areas; would you care to comment on the quality or depth of these sources? Without referring back to the degree of damage caused – the "minimal" phrasing can be revised in a moment's notice – can you assess this article against any of the actual criteria outlined by WP:N? Please note that additional sources exist beyond those which I've incorporated. This 2014 document published by the US Army Corps of Engineers, for instance, lists Cristobal among the storms that "created significant threat to life and property" in the New York region. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was that storms with "minimal" damage don't really need articles, but since new sources quantifying the damage have been put up, I can safely say that my concerns have been addressed. Therefore, I withdraw this AFD. -- Java Hurricane 03:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: The nominator declared their intention to withdraw this submission, and the only other participant prior to that left no rationale for their vote. Surely a relist is not necessary. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 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. Draftification can be requested at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson & Co v Williams

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

This article has so many issues. I can a copy of the court decision at ~~[17]~~ (I determined this to be a reference to a different case) and I've found a source I can't access that seems to mention the subject at [18]. This case does not seem to pass WP:GNG ~~or WP:CASES~~. Most of the information I can find is from similarly named cases from different years, and I can't find much in the way of this case ever being used as a precedent. I can't state with 100% certainty that it fails "1. It is the subject of a reasoned opinion of the highest court of a country, state or province." from WP:CASES, but that's just because the article does not indicate the court it was tried in, although it is in Category:English contract law (this is the only indication of which country this case is from). Even if enough is turned up to pass WP:CASES, This would qualify for WP:TNT. This article doesn't even have citations. The only references to this case I was even able to turn up were on Revolvy (typically a Wikipedia mirror) and a blogspot site. Fails both the general ~~and subject-specific notability guidelines.~~ Hog Farm (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE where the case was heard, and what standing the ruling might have, given that it is cited as QB it was heard in the Queen's Bench Division, which is part of the High Court. While certainly not "the highest court of a country" (which seems to me an unduly onerous test, given that very few cases end up in the Supreme Court!), or even the second highest for that matter, the High Court is nevertheless one of the senior courts. I'm not commenting on whether this justifies the article, just wanted to explain that particular point. HTH, DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CASES is part of a page which explicitly states that it is a failed proposal. What is more, it didn't just marginally fail: there was very nearly 100% consensus against the proposal when it was discussed. It is therefore not at all appropriate to cite it as a criterion for notability. JBW (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Big oops there - I typed "Wikipedia notability court cases" into Google trying to find the subject specific notability guidelines, and it took me straight to the section in the middle of the page. I never saw the failed proposal header at the top. Striking out that part of my argument from the rationale. Hog Farm (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The case is referred to in a number of sources I have found, and it may possibly be notable enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. ~~(I am bewildered as to why the only "references to this case" HogFarm could find were Revolvy and blogspot.)~~ However, even if it is notable to be the subject of an article, this article is not the one. The text of the article consists entirely of unattributed copies from two sources, and is written in terms appropriate in the contexts from which they are copied, but not for a Wikipedia article. There is no context to allow a reader to understand what the case means or what its relevance is. It uses legal jargon which will be totally opaque to well over 99% of readers. (For example, how many people will have the remotest idea what is meant by "having attorned to the purchaser, was estopped from impeaching his title, that the refusal to deliver was a conversion"?) There are no references, and no indication of why the case is notable (if it is). It would be possible to rewrite the text to make it comprehensible, but that would still provide no context or evidence of notability. The article has existed in a totally unsuitable state since 2015, with nobody taking any steps to improve it in that time; it is unlikely that anyone is going to do so now, and if they are, then they can just as well start from scratch. JBW (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a lot of references to a "Henderson v. Williams" from North Carolina a few years later. If I'd known for sure that it was from the UK, I would not have made the nom (My search engine is set up in a way that it highly prioritizes sites from the United States, and I haven't been able to get this changed). Hog Farm (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was forgetting that search engines such as Google can sometimes produce very different results for the same search from different people, depending on what it thinks is likely to be relevant to those people. Prioritising results from the country one appears to be in is one of many ways that is done, so it's perfectly likely that Hog Farm's searches may have failed to produce the mentions that I found. JBW (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. The case appears to be noted in at least one textbook (and, from a quick Google Books search, possibly others), so it may be salvageable. While it is true that the article could be redrawn from scratch, why do that when this can be used as a starting point? BD2412 T 17:01, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Areyrey

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

Unreleased film that is not notable. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Filming since April 2015? It's dead, Jim. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per WP:CRYSTAL. We have no way of knowing when this will get out of development hell. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nightly (band)

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

Not seeing enough reliable coverage of this band to warrant an article, and the current sources sure do not establish much notability. Andise1 (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC based on significant coverage with, e.g., [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Chubbles (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources significant coverage as identified above such as AllMusic, Cleveland Scene, Melodic (magazine) and others so WP:GNG is passed and deletion is not necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 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 20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharlin Farzana

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

Non-notable actress who fails the notability guideline for entertainers. GSS ^💬 04:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep: Having checked online, I think the actress does pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, with several mains roles in plays. But given that my online search was limited by virtue of my inability to speak Bengali, I will take on board the opinions of other editors and will amend my vote if necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dflaw4: What? Did you read the policy before voting here? GSS ^💬 14:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just waddled on up and voted "Keep" just to rock the boat... If you read my comment above you'll know that I will take into account the opinions of other editors who are better placed to appraise the Bengali sources. If I am swayed by what they have to say, I will change my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I downgraded my vote to a "Weak Keep" based on the comments of আফতাবুজ্জামান, who appears to be in a better position than me to evaluate the sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & WP:TOOSOON. She acted in one film which is not released yet & acted in some non notable tv drama. All source are primary, Interview mixed with a press release masquerading as an article. This article is translated from bn:শার্লিন ফারজানা, it got deleted there for same reason. We can always create this article when she became notable. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete based on the input by আফতাবুজ্জামান, this seems to be a case for deletion. While she has not yet acted in any films, it appears she has starred in several television series, which should also be taken into account. If the sources cited are reliable (which they may be although I can't recognize Bangladeshi news sources), then I would be inclined to keep.IphisOfCrete (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not tv series but one hour one episode like tv drama. Non notable tv drama. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Reid

AfDs for this article:

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

Available sources are mostly promotional, porn-industry publications. Judging by recent AfDs, mainstream lists such as "The Dirty Dozen: Porn's biggest stars" are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ENT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer of pornographic material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She easily passes WP:GNG. I ran a mainstream news archive search for her and found a whole bunch of material in a bunch of contexts from multiple countries - a surprising amount considering the dearth of material I've come to expect on some of these AfDs. I think this is the most clear-cut pass I've come across in these AfDs yet. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tons of mainstream media coverage on her. I found these [24], [25], [26], [27] in a few seconds. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of the above, #1 and #2 are mostly Q&As with Reid, and #4 has little to no biographical info. The vast majority of news search results are tabloids, blogs, and industry websites, but a few ([28][29][30]) do seem usable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm a little surprised at the nomination and the single "Delete" vote thus far, to be honest. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG—lots of sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Clearly passes the WP:GNG. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. Certainly more people have heard of Riley Reid than Terry Tao (random example), and he has a comparatively massive page. Tentonne (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Blatantly passes WP:GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 13:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Adult Actress. Passes.WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.209.229 (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This looks like WP:SNOWBALL to me. I would close it as keep but have already expressed my opinion. Anyone else can close this? gidonb (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Riley Reid is definitely a notable porn star due to mainstream media coverage. Example. ⌚️ (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Narnia (world)#Archenland. Consensus not to keep; redirect as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anvard

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

Not every named place in every book is notable, Cair Paravel is not even notable, this place receives much less mention is is thus of even less importance. How this article has gone for over a decade with notification of only primary sourcing and in-universe perspective problems is just a sign of how such notifications have done nothing to improve our horrid coverage of fictional articles. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing scholarly I can find, and not even mentioned at The Horse and His Boy, so no point in redirecting there. Hog Farm (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narnia (world) § Archenland I cannot find any substantial discussions of this topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Impressionism

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

As a previous prod stated, there was no Canadian Impressionism, just impressionists from Canada. The term was coined recently in conjunction with a book and there is no further coverage of the topic. There are sources that talk of impressionism and Canada but note that this is different. None of those sources claim that a movement ever existed, mainly because it didn't. It's a neologism used as an umbrella term for a number of Canadian artists working in the impressionist style. What little that is here in this article can be found elsewhere. There is only one source given and no other supporting sources exist, other than a few brief mentions in connection with the book. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 01:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it be of any value to rename it Impressionism in Canada? I'm personally not familiar enough with general coverage articles to say.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Canadian Impressionism is better, as some artists produced works outside the country, such as James Wilson Morrice. Curiocurio (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has some good supporting references. The fact that the term is a neologism is no cause for concern. There was no term "Renaissance" during the Renaissance or "Middle Ages" during the Middle Ages. The fact that authorities are using the phrase Canadian Impressionism (the National Gallery, Apollo magazine) should be sufficient. The History section does need some expansion though. Curiocurio (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has solid sources, looks like a good start and can always be improved. The topic definitely deserves its own page in my opinion, so I don't see why we'd delete it.Auberginandjuice (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 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. WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NPROF. Will restore to draft on request if anyone wants to work on it in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly See

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

Not notable academic and scientist. Article claims she won some award, which doesn't have a wikipedia article, is a claim made by the subject herself in a You tube video. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By "some award", I guess you refer to the Science Award in Electrochemistry, which is cited with the news article on the BASF website (not the YouTube video). There is only one winner annually. She has also been named a Beckman Young Investigator, now clearly mentioned in the lede, which is only awarded to a handful of academics – an award which does have its own Wikipedia page. Jesswade88 (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She appears to be a very promising early career researcher but the current article doesn't provide evidence that she yet meets our notability guidelines. ElKevbo (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The citations are on the low side for a higher citation field, and the awards are early career recognitions only. If she keeps it up, she'll likely make WP:NPROF, but not at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't yet had time to evaluate this particular case as fully as I should, but I'll confess, I don't really understand the "only early-career awards" dismissal in general. Arguably, what matters is how much a person stands out from among other researchers at the same career stage. We wouldn't delete an article on a chess prodigy because they're only seven years old. What matters is the degree of recognition conferred by those early-career awards and how exclusive they are. If a person is documentably top-notch among early-career scientists, then it's already not too soon. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the early career awards meet WP:NPROF C2. A terminal associate professor who showed early promise (including winning such awards) should not be Wikipedia notable. Since notability is not temporary, the early career academic who is showing promise (as evidenced by awards of this type) shouldn't be either. That said, the early career awards do not detract from notability either, and if the subject has reached notability under WP:NPROF C1, or has received an award that does meet WP:NPROF C2, then we should keep the article. From what I understand of the citation levels in chemistry, her citation record doesn't show this, but I'll listen carefully if anyone gives evidence as to why it does. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is better held at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Briefly, my interpretation of that part of the guideline is a way for us to "take the long view" of notability and focus on people who have made lasting contributions and impact. Of course, if someone doesn't meet those guidelines then we can always apply the general notability guidelines if there are sufficient sources so we're not hemmed in if an assistant professor has other ways of meeting our notability guidelines. ElKevbo (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not create articles on people on the way to notability, only on people who actually get there, and she is not there yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ACADEMIC is not met: assistant professor, and just a single article with considerable citations. A private industry award to boot. I heavily lean towards delete at this time, but she's got a long career ahead of her for sure. PK650 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, WP:PROF, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:TOOSOON. Se does not pass our standards for academics, not having met any of the criteria. We almost never agree here at AfD that an assistant professor is notable, and only rarely an associate professor. She is too early in her career to assess her impact. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strawheads

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

We've got a dead link and an alternate name that is not featured in the article it links to. Nothing here. Hog Farm (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doug Mehus T·C 02:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our criteria for WP:D Lightburst (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is not a disambiguation page that assists navigation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. More Tolkiencruft that should never have seen the light of Anar. (Also an insult to scarecrows everywhere.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skandaloto

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

I don't see how a small village in a municipality is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. It only has one source, which isn't independent, and it only has one sentence. Doesn't seem to good with notability. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep The village is definitely there, though I can find very little about it in current documents. The word "municipality" is misleading in that an area which is largely rural and only has a few thousand residents all told is hardly a city by any standard; the term probably translates better as "township". There are, btw, some problems here in that the locations given for the other villages in the municipality are implausible. But as a rule we have held towns which we could document at all as notable, and there's definitely documentation for this one. Mangoe (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the first bullet point at WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources if you go looking. It just took me a mere five minutes to add the 2011 Bulgarian census data. Is the nomination wrongly based upon the stubby state of the article at the point of nomination? If that's the case, it should be closed speedily. Greenshed (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is the Guide Bulgaria website not independent of the village? The nomination seems to be based upon a mistaken premise. Greenshed (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep legally defined populated place, easily passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All populated places are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eggs Beauregard}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmela Zumbado}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen}}