Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:02, 1 September 2020

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 August	2 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of landlocked U.S. states

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

This is WP:TRIVIA plain and simple. It is WP:OR that can quickly be deduced from looking at a map. The one "source" cited is laughable. It clearly indicates a WP:GNG fail. It is mentioned once that Nebraska is triply landlocked. Just because a Senate press release mentions this, does not mean that the article is notable. I-82-I | TALK 03:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 03:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:LISTN. The distinction is significant for countries, which have to export their goods to take advantage of maritime shipping, but for American states, not so much. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, this is WP:TRIVIA. A really unimportant topic which can be sorted by looking at a map, as the nom suggests. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't call an indisputably verifiable fact OR, but it is not encyclopedic. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cunard's fine work on the last AfD in 2018, which I hereby incorporate by reference. I believe the reason this article has existed for over 11 years is because it is useful to our readers and appropriate content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being multiply landlocked is a meaningless triviality. We don't need articles to put in lists anything that can be ascertained by a map. Sources pointing out that particular states are landlocked doesn't need a list to collate that. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure trivia. The distinction of US states being "landlocked" serves little to no purpose, as compared to actual countries. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. Unsourced and probably WP:OR. In addition, the list is incorrect as states like Michigan have been served by ocean-going ships via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Cxbrx (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree with Milowent. Cunard's sources prove this is clearly notable. [1] Dream Focus 00:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is WP:TRIVIA, fails WP:LISTN. The comparable article about countries contains information not easily understood by looking at a map, and is is a significance because of the issue of trade. This on the other hand meets WP:NOTEVERYTHING // Timothy :: talk 03:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia, as noted by others. Land-locked nations is a notable topic for historical, trade, etc...reasons. Articles like this are evidence of the English Wikipedia being too Ameri-centric. Zaathras (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mathilde of Saxony (born 1936)

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

Not really a princess, born after noble titles abolished in Germany, article is mostly routine genealogy. PatGallacher (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of individual notability. Oddly enough, the article doesn't even mention her profession and her only real title: it seems she was a medical doctor. —Kusma (t·c) 10:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no indication of notability. Smeat75 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the section of her father's article that mentions her: Friedrich Christian, Margrave of Meissen#Marriage and children. TJMSmith (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the only coverage is in genealogical publications but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. 103.200.134.151 (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the strong and well-argued delete consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Saxon thrones demonstrates that defunct titles are not a claim to notability in themselves. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lack substantiality on its own; nothing more than a genealogical record that hasn't even been written properly. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to her father or husband. I see nothing notable about her. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even more deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | [chat] || 07:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Steinman

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

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG. There is decent coverage of Desert Runners but there exists basically no coverage of Steinman herself and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I was unable to find any significant, independent, reliable sources covering Steinman. W 42 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. W 42 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. W 42 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steinman has worked on a number of films that have each gotten notable recognition from prestigious film festivals. This article, though lean, provides more references and more awards than most filmmaker stubs.SJTatsu (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steinman can make 100 films, but the purpose of a biographical article is to provide information about the individual -- not their films. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. As of this writing there are a total of 16 citations. Only 2 are about the person Jennifer Steinman: an interview with her, and about the development of a film by her ("Interview with Desert Runner's Jennifer Steinman". MtnMeister; "Film sees grieving U.S. moms in Africa learning new way to mourn". SFGate.). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC); edited [reason: forgot to specify], 02:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your critique, more citations and more biographical information have now been addedSJTatsu (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Remove the overload of citations about films and we will see exactly how many citations are about the individual (aside from the interview with Steinman about the film, I counted 2 more citations about Desert Runners; 3 citations for Time for Ilhan; 3 citations for She Started It; 2 ciations for Sunny Side, one in Spanish; then there are the citations for festival announcements and lineups, and film awards). The totality of the article has little to do with the purpose of a biographical article: information about an individual's early life, education, career, and personal life. If you need guidance on how to create a biographical article, see for example: Mari Asato, Barbara Hammer, Avigail Sperber, Lucy Walker. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was going to add Ms. Steinman's Ted Talk (which incorporates very personal information along with filmmaking), and saw the deletion page. I looked at Maria Asato's page and it has almost no biographical information beyond one line. Ms. Hammer's page similarly has three lines of biographic information, two of which contain info about filmmaking. I want very much to be inline with expectations when I add to this page. Am I missing something? Many thanks.Championable (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ms. Hammer's page similarly has three lines of biographic information. What are you talking about? Barbara Hammer's bio includes "Life and career", "Awards", "Style and reception", "Grant", "Feminist and lesbian works impact", "Illness, right to die activism, and death", "Filmography", and "Retrospectives". There's a huge difference between content that addresses a filmmaker's style, history, and influential films she is known for -- and content about films 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, by a filmmaker. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I apologies if it came across as a comparison of the whole article. I promise it was not. Rather, I was referring to specific purely biographical info that was not related to her work. I definitely don't want to diminish the importance and impact of Ms. Hammer. One thing of note I was thinking about is that Ms. Hammer's page was started in 2005, and has been developing over the last decade and a half. If you look at the first version of Ms. Hammer's article, it was 186 words, and developed over the next 15 years. With that said, I respect everything you are saying and am just discussing in a normal tone (I won't use emojis though.)

Respectfully, I also checked Samantha Gash's page (star of Desert Runners) along with several other filmmakers, and I don't see the biographical information. I love Desert Runners and was inspired by Gash's journey and Steinman's parenting story in her Ted Talk (which I will add to here), but I respectfully wanted to say that there are many recent pages without the information you are requesting. With that said, I shall make it a mission :) to find what you requested. Thank you! Championable (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Most of the interviews are conducted by joe schmoes, including the one referenced in lede. Graywalls (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could call out Rich Roll as a very well known interviewer,but I believe the work of the others is legitimate, and shouldn't be dismissed. Championable (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She qualifies as notable as a creative professional. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." She is an independent filmmaker. Her film Desert Runners got significant mainstream coverage. The rest of her coverage is consistent with being an independent filmmaker. Besides, she is midcareer and likely to continue to produce other films of note. SJTatsu (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I was really wanting to vote keep on this, but I can't in good conscious with the current state of the sourcing. While I think her films have gotten some coverage, it doesn't seem to "significant mainstream coverage" as implied. Even for her film Desert Runners. Which only has three film critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes that are kind of fringe film websites. The lack of good sourcing about her films aside, ultimately for a biographical article to be notable there should be some sources discussing the person that it is about and not just their films. There isn't much about her personally though. So, it doesn't stand biographical article. Let alone does it get a pass because of her films. That said, I think a case could made that Desert Runners is notable enough for an article about it. Since there is some, although likely subpar, reviews of it. Although, that's a different matter then this AfD, but at least it's something. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criterion cited by SJTatsu is so poorly-written that it is constantly misinterpreted and misused and it drives me mental. The point of that criterion isn't that anyone who ever wrote a book or made a film that hits GNG by dint of having a few reviews on release is therefore automatically also notable. The bar is higher - the work should be "significant" or "well-known", ie, it is known in its field past being routinely reviewed on release. I see no indication that Steinman's one notable film hits that bar, so the criterion shouldn't apply. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajavardan

· Stats)

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

Unknown actor who is a star's son and has played the lead role in one film. Remember notability is not inherited. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Weak Delete: Another case of an article failing WP:GNG. Pahiy (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NACTOR, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passes WP:GNG as highlighted in the discussions (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 16:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permian Basin International Oil Show

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

This may be a well known biennial event that occurs in the Permian Basin region of Texas, but has been tagged since April 2018 as needing additional citations for verification. And I’m not sure if it were to get some citations for the event and its history it would be worthy enough to prevent deletion and the way it looks now leans towards it being deleted. Pahiy (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pahiy, there's extensive coverage in local newspapers for the current show, and its predecessor held in 1940 and 1941: [2] [3]|[4] Raymie (t • c) 03:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per additional sources. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus here is for keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Szczęśliwego Nowego Jorku

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

This non notable film has no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE search. Only things found were film database sites. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is a non-reliable source per our own guidelines, all articles should be built on reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Please consider the sources I discuss below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Polish version of this article is not much better (it is longer but doesn't cite many sources), and I understand that most people here don't read Polish, but at least ask at WT:POLAND before. It is a major Polish film by a major Polish director (Janusz Zaorski), neither may be a household name, but they are both above-average, and obviously it will have a bunch of reviews and such in Polish - unfortunately most of it is not digitized or in hard-to-search Polish newspapers archives and like. It is mentioned in some English sources like [5] (since the director is notable, and that source notes it is one of his major movies). Some still-online reviews: [6], [7], [8], [9]. Google Books gives plentyof hits: I cannot access more than a snippet but I think it has a review in the 1997 edition of Polish magazine about movies [10], and another review from 1997 seems to be here: [11]. There is also other coverage, [12] (about the movie being restored by Polish state television), or mentions in lists like [13] (which is a Polish gov't sponsored site about a Polish culture). It seems to have its own section/review in this book [14] but sadly that magazine has digital archives from 1998 onward only right now ([15]); anyway this may not be just a review as the title suggests the article discusses a (negative) reception of the movie by US Polonia. Another book seems to have a two-page long discussion of the movie: [16]. Google Scholar also shows many hits, for example I see several paragraphs discussing this movie in [17] and a bunch of shorter mentions in several other academic works, overall the movie has been clearly subject to media and academic discourse about how people in Poland see Polish emigrants in the USA. I could throw more sources, but really, what needs flying here is a WP:TROUT. PS. The article here discusses several reviews of the movie by known Polish movie criticis and notes it was a big box office hit in Poland of that time. PPS. There is one more in-depth academic article about the movie and the book it is based on but it seems not to be available online: [18]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the director and the actors, all of whom are notable and quite well known (though maybe not in US), this is clearly notable as well. Volunteer Marek 04:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the updates of the article it has proved itself both relevant, notable and well sourced. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep after improvements. Also, more sources exist. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Staszek Lem: As I nominated this for a DYK, I wouldn't mind seeing those "more sources"? Maybe I can use them to expand the article? TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
Keep as per WP:HEY, the included reliable sources show a clear pass of WP:GNG and WP:NFILM imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We shouldn't be biased against foreign films just because checking notability and verifiability are more difficult in a foreign language. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 09:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taka Ana Pai

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

This non notable film has no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE search. Only things found were film database site, youtube videos, and blogs. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sole cited source supports only that Baby Zaman was in the cast. There are passing mentions in other news articles about actors,[19][20] but no significant coverage. Searching books and scholarly articles by: Mushtaq Gazdar, Anuradha Ghosh, Enamul Haque, Anupam Hayat, Lotte Hoek, John W. Hood, Syed Manzoorul Islam, Alamgir Kabir, John A. Lent, Zakir Hossain Raju, Abdul Hai Shikdar, and Sara Zaker, three list Taka Ana Pai among the forty or so Bengali films made in East Pakistan in 1970. They do not agree on who directed it, or say anything else about it. If determined to find an alternative to deletion, it could be redirected to List of Dhallywood films of 1970, but there was also a 1956 Indian film by the same name (or perhaps hyphenated as Taka-Ana-Pai), so redirection could cause more confusion than it's worth. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yalgaar (1992 film)

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

Film has no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE search. All current citations are passing mentions, database sites, or articles on the director. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; as it also fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Pahiy (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too could only find mentions. Not a notable Bollywood-type film. Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/List of landlocked U.S. states (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Mathilde of Saxony (born 1936)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Steinman}}