Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 February	19 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Supercars Championship

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

~~WP:TOOSOON, one confirmed driver change is not enough to justify an article at this stage. Fecotank (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With Holden being retired by the end of 2020, I think it will be interesting to see how it will go with other teams, will they move to other manufacturers? Or will they withdraw from the series. Plus the possibility of Gen3 to be fast-tracked to 2021 to cater for Holden's retirement.Hiflex480 (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, in time there will be enough coverage to justify an article, but so far nothing has been announced. Fecotank (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Fails WP:SIGCOV. A Google search for "2021 Supercars Championship" -wikipedia.org brought up just over 100 results, and most appeared to be blogs, forums, and the like. There simply isn't enough evidence to suggest that this is already considered a notable event. However, previous races of this type most certainly are notable, so I believe it is simply a matter of time. I suggest keeping this as a draft until more reliable sources can be found to back up the information in the article as well as to establish notability. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has since been improved. Retracting !vote. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is probably the best part as it's way too soon to see what the fallout of this is going to be with the removal of Holden. At best it's probably best to keep it as a draft but for now I would say delete it and create within six or seven months when we have more info. HawkAussie (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was over sighted with my thought and if it wasn't for Holden removing themselves from 2021, then I would have gone the other way. For now I switch my vote to Keep. HawkAussie (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — GM's decision to end the Holden brand has significant implications for the championship. One Holden team has already announced that they will not enter Holdens in 2021 and the sport's management has indicated their willingness to bring forward major regulation changes in response to this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources have been added since the beginning of the discussion. Do they present enough coverage, or is it still WP:TOOSOON?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I reckon with WAU no longer driving Commodores in 2021, it may start up a flow on effect, with other teams potentially switching manufacturers. This has also seen Gen3 being push forward to 2021, as what Sean Seamer, Supercars CEO, has said. But that being said, it's possible for Opel to return to Australia, meaning that some Commodores may be simply re-badged as Opels. I don't think it's WP:TOOSOON, but more of a watch and wait sort of thing. Because who knows who will jump from Holden next? Hiflex480 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the nominator, agree events have changed since the nomination. Have stuck my original comment and am changing my vote to a keep. Fecotank (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mclarenfan17. - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft WP:TOOSOON. Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will get out of the way. WP:SKCRIT is met. Nomination withdrawn. Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Librarians Welfare Organization

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

Non-notable organisation. Only one reference to the company's own website. Also, the content is quite promotional. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftity due to complete lack of independent sources, but can be vetted through AfC after enough references are added. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:12, 5 March 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. It has not been compellingly demonstrated that GNG or NRADIO (NBROADCAST) is met, (original programming? Affiliate of notable network perhaps?) but I see no consensus to delete, either. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DXDD-FM

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

Yet another non-notable Philippines radio station stub. This was accepted by Robert McClenon from AFC but I'm afraid I see no indication that this passes WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. The two sources provided are both primary sources that simply list the station in a directory, but confer no notability whatsoever. I see no obvious candidate for a redirect. Hug^syrup 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Catholic Media Network#FM Stations Nothing exceptional about this station; all easily covered in the CNM table. Nate • (chatter) 01:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing notable about it, there are two references, one paragraph, and the owner of DXDD-FM doesn't even have an article. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 14:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 2 links in the article states that the station exists. Therefore, since the station is license by the NTC, the article is good enough to pass WP:BROADCAST. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, don't bother responding because arguing with me over my vote won't change anything at all. I'm not looking for an argument or debate here. So, I won't reply any further. I stand by my vote no matter what. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well thanks for your positive attitude towards the AfD process. I won’t argue with you, but I will state for the benefit of anyone else reading your !vote that mere existence is not the required standard of WP:BROADCAST, and certainly not the required standard of the GNGs. Hug^syrup 07:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on a very broad interpretation of radio notability, including its operator also having an FM station. With only 456,976 possible call letters, we don't need to prevent pollution of mainspace. I agree with User:Superastig that most arguing at AFDs is useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 20 February 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 // 20:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons stated by Superastig and Robert McClenon. SBKSPP (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Metropolitan Hockey League

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

Youth sports league which does not assert or meet any notability. Any coverage is routine, and not by any independent third party. Flibirigit (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:42, 19 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. There is no clear consensus one way or the other regarding the notability of this company, and therefore no consensus to delete the article. However, just because the article won't be deleted doesn't mean that there aren't paths available to challenge and remove content from the article that cannot be backed up by reliable sources. ‑Scottywong | [talk] || 00:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NowMedical

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

A possible un-notable company with only local sources and blog articles as support of WP:GNG, with factual accuracy which is disputed.
(I myself does not have an opinion, only relaying from OTRS ticket:2020021010006728.) Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation of what factual accuracy is disputed. There are seven independent references and there are more out there. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see the OTRS ticket, so I'm not sure what the complaint is about, but if I were Dr. Keen, or in any way affiliated with NowMedical, I'd like to have it removed. It's not exactly flattering. The sources aren't great, but I don't think they're libelous or defamatory, which would be a reason to (immediately) delete it. Looking at the sources; bracknellnews.co.uk has A "Send us your news" feature, https://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/send-us-your-news/ BUT claims to adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. Their article was written by Ollie Sirrell, who works for newsquest.co.uk, which says about itself "We employ experienced marketing consultants throughout the UK that help local businesses promote their products and services to local audiences." If the subject was another cryptocurrency company, I'd be pretty quick to dismiss that as an unreliable source. OpenDemocracy's article was written by Clare Sambrook, a novelist & investigative journalist. The article for thebureauinvestigaes was written by Maeve McClenaghan, who appears to be a reliable investigative journalist. The Islington Gazette looks like an independent, relibale source to me. The author, Lucas Cumiskey has an email address at archant.co.uk, which is dodgy; "we help businesses enter and succeed in their chosen markets through marketing services". Again, if this was an article about some startup, I would not trust that source. nicholasnicol.uk is clearly a blog. So is nearlylegal.co.uk. The Hackney Citizen's article was written by Ed Sheridan who is bylinead as the Local Democracy Reporter for the Islington citizen and the Camden citizen as well. I'm not super-impressed by the sources, but I see no reason to dismiss them as factually inaccurate. The article in the independent is clearly significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. Vexations (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not wonderful, but there is no obvious conflict of interest, and the real source of most of them is The Bureau of Investigative Journalism which is reasonably respectable, but the local papers are following up the implications of their story. But I've now found a much fuller report in the Independent. Rathfelder (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Request As I can see the OTRS ticket I'm going to ask that this be relisted. The letter to OTRS provides specific claims as to why available sources do not establish notability which are loosely of the kind of analysis which is typical at an AfD discussion. This analysis cannot be posted here without permission so I am going to ask for that permission. If granted it would allow a chance for uninvolved editors to discuss whether they do or don't meet our qualifications. If not granted then consensus above hasn't really changed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I too have reviewed the OTRS ticket, and see decent cause to relist at this time. I would like to see extra involvement from people not directly involved in writing the article, and also think this will allow time for a response permitting some details from the ticket to be shared here. I do suggest future participants of this discussion comment on the notability of this company, and whether the current angle of the article is adhering enough to WP:DUE (especially with consideration that living people are discussed in the article).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following was sent in by the lawyers representing NowMedical. It arrived on February 28th but was only routed to me a short time ago.

Notability
NowMedical is a small, private business with six employees. It provides non-binding medical opinions to assist local authorities and the UKBA in making decisions on social housing and an individual's ability to leave the UK respectively. Pursuant to Wikipedia’s Policy, NowMedical is “a very small”, “local” company and is not sufficiently notable to warrant its own page.
Inaccuracies/Defamatorv Allegations
No “ﬁt to ﬂy” language is used in NowMedical reports. These are directed only at the statutory test ofwhether an individual is “unable to leave the UK”.
NowMedical’s doctors are not required, by law or their regulators, to physically examine a patient to provide the opinions sought. NowMedical does not diagnose, or challenge diagnoses of, patients. It provides opinions based on medical records provided, as to whether that patient’s medical condition meets the relevant statutory test. A physical examination would add nothing to this opinion. This approach is corroborated by the English courts and General Medical Council.
NowMedical advised Haringey council that the child was in “medical need” and moving to ground floor accommodation was optimal. As such accommodation in London is scarce, NowMedical suggested that a different ﬁrst ﬂoor ﬂat may be a suitable alternative and enable a quicker move.
Sources
The Islington Tribune, Hackney Citizen, Islington Gazette and Bracknell News are “media of limited interest and circulation” and should not be relied on when assessing notability.
The Independent, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Open Democracy articles each contain defamatory allegations and substantial inaccuracies. All are the subject of legal complaints. They do not satisfy Wikipedia’s reliability criterion.
Nearly Legal is a self-published blog written by a housing law ﬁrm partner. As a practitioner in housing law he holds a vested interest in discrediting NowMedical and stands to ﬁnancially beneﬁt from legal challenges to local authority decisions. He is not an independent contributor.
Nicolas Nicol’s blog is self-published. He is not “unrelated with no vested interest in the company”. As a barrister, he acts against local authorities who have made
decisions involving NowMedical opinions and is incentivised to contribute to the misleading narratives in the local media.

I post this without comment or opinion merely for consideration by other editors as part of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not show that the company is not notable, rather the reverse. These issues should be addressed in the article. Rathfelder (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the contrary, the OTRS ticket does not substantiate that there is any notable controversy. It does substantiate that there is a possible serious BLP issue and which should not be ignored. The only source that substantiates that this issue has created significant coverage in RS is the Independent, which fails to substantiate that there is any wrongdoing involved. Other sources are local smalltime press and a lobbying group. The article as written paints the BLP subject's actions in a negative light and that requires better coverage than currently exists. If the controversy later generates further significant coverage in RS than it can be re-created but BLP requires removal of most of the information. The amount of BLP-compliant information remaining is not worth having an article for and does not comply with GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a company, not a person. The question is not how good the article is. The question is whether the company has coverage. Coverage in local press is relevant because the coverage is of contracts the company has with individual local councils. Rathfelder (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder:: WP:BLP ...applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia including articles about organizations. "The article is about a company" is not a loophole for BLP-violating information or attack pages. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies everywhere. However, because this is about a company and not a person, can there be a policy compliant version of this company? If so its notability - or not - should stand on its own. If the company can only be covered in ways which would violate our BLP policy then that should impact whether or not we have an article at all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:, I have difficulty believing that a compliant version is possible. The only source of notability is the accusations sourced almost entirely to non-RS. The company is very closely related to the doctor and, even assuming all the coverage is correct, seems to be mostly a practice name rather than an organization with a significant staff. This makes separating the company's actions from the person's actions fuzzy at best. Thanks for posting the OTRS complaint for examination. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two mentions of Dr Keen. First that he started the company and second that he sent a report without seeing a patient. Neither appear to be disputed. This is not “a very small”, “local” company. It provides services to a very large number of local authorities. The contracts with those councils are discussed in their local papers, as you would expect. Some of the critical coverage is based on court judgements. Also discussed in local papers. One council defends the company and that is included in the article. The lawyers do not appear to be disputing any of the contents, merely saying that the criticism is unfair. It may be, but that doesnt make it libellous. Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Independent, at least, is a reliable source providing substantial coverage. That NowMedical disagrees with its reporting does not make it less reliable. Also, contra Eggishorn, whether the allegation made in The Independent or elsewhere have merit or not has nothing to do with whether the paper is reliable or the company is notable. Coverage for false allegations is still coverage. Together with the other sources, I think the notability bar is passed here. Sandstein 09:57, 6 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moni Tonga’uiha

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I found nothing that indicates this player meets WP:GNG despite playing two seasons in Major League Rugby. This includes searches under Moni Tonga’uiha, Moni Tongauiha, and Tesimoni Tongauiha (which is the only name he gets any G-News hits and arguably should be the WP:COMMONNAME based off the player profile on the team page and that it gets the most hits on searches). What does show up is a few of WP:ROUTINE game reports, typical transaction WP:NOTNEWS announcements, and nothing of significant depth that isn't WP:PRIMARY.

It has been argued in the past that because Major League Rugby is possibly "fully professional" that it meets WP:NRU, but that has recently been contested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Major League Rugby and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Major League Rugby in that many of the less-than-superstar players get very minimal coverage (such as Tesimoni Tongauiha, in my analysis). Yosemiter (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has represented US in international competition and both America's Rugby News and DJ Coil appear to be RS. Passes WP:GNG (if only just). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 3 March 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) 10:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Art Magazine

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

Notablity fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From https://www.globalartmagazine.com/en/aboutus.html: "You are an artist and want to secede from the anonymity to enter the public sphere of a large international audience? Or you are part of an art institution that has an interest to network itself more global? Our forum enables new possibilities of contact and communication between galleries, museums, art organizations and freelance artists, beyond all national boundaries." Global Art Magazine is published by a "consortium" https://pashminart-consortia.com/about-us/, that is trying to promote Davood Roostaei. Vexations (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thin content, verging on the promotional. Doesn't meet GNG I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional, non-notable. Dorama285 01:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable magazine. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis the inline citations are not about Global Art Magazine, so it seems to be entirely a WP:COATRACK. I can't find any independent reliable sources about Global Art Magazine online. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 14:23, 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 delete. The arguments to keep are classic arguments to avoid, and there was insufficient consensus for redirecting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horton family

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

Fictional minutiae better suited for a fanwiki, unsourced and (per talk) with accuracy problems. List of Days of Our Lives characters can hold the same information if so desired (by re-ordering by family), no need for 5 extra family articles to get that information across.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (most of them tagged since 2012):

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

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

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

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

– sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and encyclopedic enough. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Television fancruft that belongs on a fansite. Ajf773 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Days of Our Lives cast members. All the articles are completely unsourced, failing WP:GNG and WP:PLOT, and the list article already covers any navigational purpose articles like these might have. There is nothing to merge, but they seem like possible search terms. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE !! ... It was the only place or BEST place for me to find the background info on the Horton family in Days of Our Lives. (not sure if I'm putting my request/protest against the article deletion in the proper place or not ... if I'm in the wrong place, I'm sorry ... I could not figure out where to put my objection) ... anyway, PLEASE DON'T DELETE this article !! (Thank you for your consideration of my opinion)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:A304:4400:E431:5086:4E93:4E (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect all - It doesn't really seem like they're relevant search terms, so deletion seems better. They do not establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incruit

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

Non notable company. Was deleted by @The Bushranger: after discussion at AfD in 2013, then restored by @King of Hearts: citing WP:REFUND after an appeal by the company's PR Manager at WP:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_83#incruit, which was rejected on that discussion page. No substantial change has been made to the article since then, and the one source cited no longer verifies. PamD 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not really a startup. I think it might be notable in South Korea, but this is quite iffy. Google results are mostly in Korean so it would be best if someone with knowledge of Korean could take a look at this. Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a bit strange that this was reinstated without WP:DRV, but nowadays the low participation in the 2013 AfD may have meant that AfD deletion would have been accompanied by a note about potential WP:REFUND. Some sources for basic verification can be found, for example it is one of five Korean sites listed in a "World-wide workforce I: An anatomy of recruiting practices around the globe" book, but that mention does no more than confirm this to be a company going about its business. The article text may be claiming primacy in online job listings (the prose is not entirely clear), but that is unsubstantiated: if it had wider influence I would expect to find WP:RS discussion. Nor is notability inherited by providing services to well-known firms. In sum, I see no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and Korean wiki page is also a stub with little demonstration of notability. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:02, 26 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 (non-admin close) Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popstar Nima

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

Appears to be WP:PROMO along with companion page Frontier Cafe. No sources, much less WP:RS. From Google & the description doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article was just created a few hours ago. Is waiting on the AfD an option? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 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. (non-admin closure) ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 04:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasah as-Sawlatiyah

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

No scope to keep, because unable to pass even the WP:GNG. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has not provided any valid rationale for deletion. The ar.wiki article has three sources. If they’re not good enough the nominator should explain why. Mccapra (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Schools need to pass the GNGs same as everyone else, and I'm not seeing a lot of sources. However I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt because a) the ar.wiki has some sources, b) if this really is a 100+ year old school then notability is likely and c) because the nominator has not actually advanced a proper, policy-based argument for deletion. Hug^syrup 11:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, but sources must be added. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notability is proven by an abundance of sources in Arabic, English, and other languages. When searching for non-Arabic sources alternate spellings should be considered:
- English: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Arabic: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Axiom292 (talk) 05:49, 19 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) 10:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris

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

Non notable. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What Urdu sources have been examined for us to be certain it’s not notable? Mccapra (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But even that unable to pass the WP:GNG. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 14:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has had twelve years of life with nearly no edits and no readily available references. Dorama285 02:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant find anything in Urdu either. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom

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

I think no scope to keep the non notable article. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article. I will challenge the notion that all madrasas are notable. I will equally challenge the idea that every Christian seminary is notable, and could find many that clearly are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Humphrey

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

Upon finding this article while doing BLP fixes, I discovered it impossible to find a source that states where this person was born... in fact, I found it impossible to find reliable sources even discussing this person. As such, I think it very likely this person fails our notability guidelines entirely. If anyone knows of sources I cannot find, please feel free to add them. But, as it stands, I think this should not be retained. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article appears to be an attempted promotion. He does have some voice acting credits, such as the old Sonic Hedgehog, but that is only noted in typical industry listings and fan sites, with no significant media coverage. His music group is nowhere close to notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia

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

Non notable Qawmi Madrasah ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:29, 4 March 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. UserNumber, sources make for a good argument in AfDs, but only if you, y'know, actually cite them. Not if they only exist in your head. Sandstein 19:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar

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

Non notable Qawmi Madrasah located in Bangladesh ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found many significant sources UserNumber (talk) 17:22, 5 March 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. KaisaL (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka

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

Non notable Deobandi madrasa ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now there are thousands of Madrasa not clear as to why this one is notable fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri

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

Not notable Islamic religious institution ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnataka

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ~~but with a recommendation that this article needs significant improvement~~. Although the article appears to have a number of sources, most of them appear to have just been copied from the sources for article about Bharatiya Janata Party, the party's national organization, and don't specifically relate to this state unit. That said, however, the BJP is the largest political party in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and thus leads the state government, in a state with more than 60 million people. A state party like that pretty much has to be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: Thanks for your comment. Via Google search it does not seem to me that the subject will pass WP:BRANCH. I think you will change your stand!S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soman has already made significant improvement to this article since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unlike what Metropolitan90 stated, this is not a separate state party but a geographical wing of Bharatiya Janata Party and clearly WP:BRANCH should be applicable and the article does not pass its criteria to merit a standalone article. There is a lack of sources that merit an independent article. Most sources are passing mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage of political events. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't merit a standalone article per WP:BRANCH, relevant information should be merged with Bharatiya Janata Party. Several major parties have substantial presence multiple states but it is does not merit individual articles for each state and is not the standard practice either. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, clearly the BJP Karnataka branch passes any GNG criteria easily. I think the question here is, in a (somewhat...) federal country like India, wouldn't there be a good potential for having articles on political parties by state level, as is the case with the 2 major U.S. parties (see Alaska Democratic Party or California Republican Party) or a number of Spanish parties? --Soman (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India is not biparty system like US, so the comparison is not apple to apple. In any case the problem is lack of sources covering it independently in great detail. It can be kept if there are sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, it would be possible to dig up 100+ good references on BJP in Karnataka. Lack of sources isn't the problem. --Soman (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also provincial articles on all major parties in Canada, such as New Democratic Party of Manitoba or in Australia (such as Category:Australian Labor Party state branches). (Yes, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, that's not the point i'm trying to make) --Soman (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you and just 5-10 good ones of those hundreds if presented here could convince the AfD. But WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST and WP:OSE will not do. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S. M. Nazmus Shakib and DBigXray, the article is now expanded. Whilst the article is far from finished, it has more material than before. --Soman (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the Karnataka BJP did not pass WP:BRANCH as it seems it enlights coverage of contesting election of BJP in Karnataka, their . Some are BJPs activities for Karnataka. The third one migh cover some good work for the BJP article. But I think not enough for WP:BRANCH. The fourth one is very good work for Karnataka CM BSY not for Karnataka BJP. Some are sworning someone as serving as president, vice president etc. (I don't want to make it very long like previous discussion of Mr. X. I hope Soman and DBigXray will understand I am talking about which AfD.) In short words Karnataka BJP gets coverage for being the state unit of BJP. The coverages, scholar works are not enough for passing WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a significant party of government, this article is undoubtedly about a notable topic. It's rival, the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee also has an article. --RaviC (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RaviC: Thanks for your comment. Let the rival of X is Y. Y has an article. But, X can not claim that Y has an article but, why I don't have? And notability WP:NOTINHERITED. A thing should pass our notability criteria differently.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, are you saying BJP Karnataka state unit lacks notability? It is the governing party of a state with 60 million inhabitants, and polled over 13 million votes in the 2018 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election. --Soman (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soman In India, we can see losing MP even MLA candidates got a huge number of votes which amount are enough for becoming the president like Iceland, Maldives, Palau and so on. But their (losing candidate) articles were not kept for getting huge amount of votes. The subject (Karnataka BJP) gets some coverage for being a state wing of BJP. These are not enough for passing WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are not reading WP:BRANCH correctly. WP:BRANCH is intended to avoid us having an article on every local branch of university fraternities, to avoid Wikipedia becoming a yellow pages. For politics there is an established practice on Wikipedia that regional bodies of major political parties may have separate articles, see Category:Democratic Party (United States) by state, National Party of Australia – Queensland, CDU Baden-Württemberg, Socialist Party of the Canaries, etc.. --Soman (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not compare those with India. Their political system is Two-party system. India's political system is not like that. In Punjab a Congress candidate can hope for his/her win. But, now-a-days in West Bengal, a Congress candidate usually thinks about his/her vote percentage so that he/she can save his/her security deposit. Same to BJP. In Uttar Pradesh BJP candidiate can hope for his win but in Tamil Nadu a BJP candidate usually thinks about his/her vote percentage so that he/she can save his/her security deposit. As per WP:BRANCH the sources presented here are not enough for passing WP:BRANCH (the reason I have mentioned earlier).S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. M., I understand you are saying that in India, a political party can be very prominent at the nationwide level while being a minor or insignificant party in certain states. I believe that. However, I don't know what that has to do with BJP in Karnataka. The BJP is the largest party in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. If you want to say that we should not have an article about Bharatiya Janata Party, Tamil Nadu because the BJP has no seats in the legislative assembly there, I can understand that. But for Karnataka, I don't understand that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan90 Actually, the article fails WP:BRANCH. It has coverages for becoming the state wing of BJP, where the coverage of BJP is the main point, not Karnataka BJP. Yes, in Karnaraka BJP is in the CM seat. So, I am saying here the article will not pass our notability criteria per WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DBigXray and Tayi Arajakate. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case it was not clear by the comments earlier, I'd like to leave a Keep vote as well. --Soman (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Subject fails WP:BRANCH, WP:GNG and WP:ORG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:54, 26 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. While the opinions of the article subject can be taken into consideration during an AFD, the consensus here is fairly clear that Schwada meets the minimum requirements for inclusion. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Schwada (journalist)

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

Subject of this article got one local award and a nice mention in a local column about his work, but he does not seem to have garnered enough attention from neutral, reliable sources to have an article in Wikipedia. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A quick glance at the article shows that this is obviously a notable journalist. Emmy Awards, LA Press Club awards, positions with top American news agencies, and more. I'm concerned about all the AFDs that are increasingly happening simply because someone else out there doesn't like them. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing much coming up, no reliable sources, no major awards, fails general notability. Ireneshih (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the local award and newspaper column brought up above, I could find nothing at all that even mentioned the guy as a subject. Honestly, If I looked I could probably find 2 or 3 comparable sources that talk about myself, and there is absolutely no way that I am notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Darthkayak (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the addition of the new sources in the past few weeks I now agree he's notable enough to pass GNG. Yngvadottir has made the article quite good, and avoided a potential pitfall: I think too much focus on the non-renewal thing would have been undue, but the majority of the non-award sources are solely about that. The subject's BLP deletion request is giving me pause now. He might be trying to keep a low-profile, and that's why I haven't changed my comment to Keep. I don't know how to feel and am pretty new to AFD discussion, so I've struck-out my above comment. As this guy isn't a well-known public figure of general interest like Anderson Cooper, I think we should be judicious, but would completely support keeping the article if consensus goes that way. Darthkayak (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note the subject of the article has requested that the page be deleted (see ticket:2020021710000097). Should it come to a close decision, their preference should probably be taken into consideration. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two thoughts. One, the speedy keep vote suggests that this report was started by someone "out there (who) doesn't like them," which is a remarkable assumption of bad faith. Two, the subject tried multiple times to own the article for self-promotional purposes, then vandalized it maliciously when they were thwarted, and was finally blocked. That behavior may be relevant when considering their request. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment II There's also reason to ask whether Mr. Schwada's entertaining personal grievances, including [1], go beyond original research and violate WP:BLP guidelines. Regardless of whether the article stays, rev/deletion may be in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The volume of the guy's awards, plus the ruckus in the press over the non-renewal of his contract, make him notable in my judgement, and I found enough about his life and career to reshape the article into a minimal biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the RS and the awards (Emmy Awards, LA Press Club awards, and positions with top American news agencies). WP:ANYBIO at the least. I find that he meets WP:GNG and it really is not his call whether he gets included in an encyclopedia. FYI: We would not consider deleting Anderson Cooper's bio based on his request. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Streisand effect. If he were a child actor, or crime victim, i would urge us to delete this article, but he's a grown man. Bearian (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, genuinely curious, how does Streisand make this a keep? Primefac (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly, the subject has brought attention to himself by editing his own article, with the implication that he thinks he himself is notable. Now that his edits have been reverted, he wants to remove his article and argue that he is not notable. Wikipedia does not work that way: once notable, a person is always notable. Barbra Streisand wanted photos of her seaside house to be private, but in complaining about it, she created publicity for the same. In cases of children, such as actors and crime victims, we tend to err on the side of deleting the article out of concern for children's privacy rights. In only one instance in the past 13 years has an adult subject successfully appealed to JimboWales that he was not notable, after seeking media attention to make himself a public figure because he wanted to stroke his own ego. That resulted in two nasty AfDs in the span of as many weeks, resulting in a terrible exception that powerful school superintendents are not notable. (In the cases of widespread bullying and pandemics, they literally have the power of life and death over children.) Other than the one case, the consensus of the Wikipedian community has been to include an adult if they are in fact notable, only redacting personal information such as date of birth and links personal web pages. In one case, a female professor was being stalked and harassed online, and we still kept her article; in another case, we kept an article for an MSNBC legal commentator unprotected after he in person and in public begged me to fix the vandalism. I can link those cases if you insist, but that would bring them undue attention again. Deleting this article would create a terrible precedent, allowing people to game the system. It would also require us to revisit past precedents, and I will demand that many more Wikipedians voice their opinion. Precedents at WP:OUTCOMES are important so that our readers, and ultimately the taxpayers who subsidize us, know what are general rules for inclusion might be. Precedents create predictability. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do know what the Streisand effect is... I was asking why it was relevant in this case. Regardless of whether the article's subject has been editing the page, or whether they are interested in having it deleted, there has been no public outcry from Schwada to have the page deleted, and your analogy is moot. If a subject is not notable, they are not notable, which is why we're at AFD and not just deleting it because he complained. Primefac (talk)
I just stated one reason, and I try not to merely pile on by repeating what others say, but if you insist... A second reason to keep is exactly what Lightburst wrote: He passes based on GNG, ANYBODY, RS, and for the significant coverage about the person. Journalists and talking heads are not automatically notable, but the drama about his leaving Fox was reported on widely and over a period of time longer than a single news cycle. For example, in 2008 his career was already notable. When he was let go in 2011, it made national news. In 2015 and 2016, he made the news as a spokesperson for political groups. In late 2016 he inserted himself into controversy again (pardon the pun) as spokesperson for Prop 60 and in 2018 as a lobbyist. In searches online, I found over 600 news articles where he's mentioned prominently some are passing mentions, but many are mostly about him. The claims that he's a private person reminds me of the inveterate socialite protesting vainly that all she does is charity work and somehow suffers through party after party. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop Switchblade

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

Article has no sources independent of the patent applications which verify notability BilCat (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete (not an aircraft, just a patent) and move material to a relevant article, like Variable-sweep wing--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~merge and disambiguate~~ redirect to Northrop Grumman Switchblade: The article lacks citations for any actual research. If these were present then Northrop's patronage would make it notable, per WP:NAIR. No doubt such research was conducted, but I can find no WP:RS documenting it. That may be because the patent makes no mention of "switchblade", so this article would then be wrongly-named. I suspect that the Internet meme merchants have confused it with the Northrop Grumman Switchblade oblique wing project. ~~I agree with Marc Lacoste that the content should be merged into Variable-sweep wing and I would add to that the Forward-swept wing. But I think this page should be kept as a disambig page.~~ Some readers will be coming here looking for the patented Internet meme, let the redirect inform them. If RS is ever uncovered, then a new page with better content can be created under a more appropriate title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC) -- Updated 22:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references cited means it fails WP:GNG. The patent linked to makes no mention of "Switchblade" nor is there any indication that the company intends to build this. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles are to have references, which this article doesn't have.Catfurball (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see that this is a pretty old article; there has been plenty of time for reliable sources to exist if it was in any way notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:52, 19 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) 10:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Li

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

no actual accomplishment of her own- the content is name dropping with brands she advertises on her social media. This seems a matter of both notability and promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being the founder of a company and the recipient of the Red Dot Award seems to merit more success and notability than "advertisements on her social media." -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She started a graphic design/advertising agency five years ago, and from the current sources, appears to be getting attention in her field. The nominator says that she advertises brands on "her social media", which I think is a misreading. Planning social media campaigns for major brands is not the same thing as posting pictures on your own social media account; it's an actual job. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have any of the Keep vote!s actually read the refs. There is a self indulgent fawning piece from the Hong Kong Tatler which is actually just a perfume advert, another fawning interview from Prestige, another society piece from Elle Hong Kong, a puff piece from generationT, I couldn't find the relevant source in Press Reader but my guess is it isn't a serious piece of commentary. The yahoo ref simply links back to the Elle puff piece and another is a micro biog care of the Hong Kong Tatler (again). Then we have just giving. Why do rich young entrepreneurs think that by giving away some money will make them notable, it doesn't. This is all a marketing puff piece for a rich young woman who may well shine in the social lime-light of Hong Kong but whose notability credentials stack up to nothing here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG - the articles are press releases or otherwise similar puff pieces. Obviously notability is not inherited from her parents or where she went to school, or the companies she is involved with. The JustGiving link is just a fundraising link. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity piece and advertising, and fails WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. The sources don't demonstrate any notability. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and does not meet WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Cheri

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: none of the current references constitute significant coverage in external sources. I looked for new ones and found nothing useful. Porn industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also did a decent search and found nada. There's nothing to suggest that sources might exist elsewhere. This is firmly one for the delete pile. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The awards look notable and she does show up on some searches, but none of the sources are RS. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that none of the sources are RS is the exact notability problem. The award won (note that it is singular) would not have passed the "well-known and significant industry award" test of the now-deprecated PORNBIO. Also, nominations and scene-related wins didn't count under PORNBIO, and they especially don't count now. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT - no detectable fan base, no significant roles, no unique contributions.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failure of WP:BASIC and WP:ENT with no independent reliable source coverage whatsoever. Would not have passed the now-superseded PORNBIO SNG as I stated above. Not even the semi-reliable porn trade mags have anything substantial to say about this performer. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maiia Khromykh

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. This page was already deleted before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maiia Khromykh). Junior skaters are not notable unless they've competed in the final segment at the World Junior Championships or receive "significant coverage" in the media. The references are merely results lists or routine coverage. Hergilei (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current article is not G5 eligible. Also not eligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this moment nothing has changed since the first AfD discussion. Neither WP:NSKATE or WP:GNG is met. However, she is competing at the Junior World Championships that start on March 2 and it's possible she might meet WP:NSKATE criteria number 2 with a good enough performance. I would suggest this discussion be put on hold until after the results of this competition are known. If she qualifies for the free skate she would be WP notable, otherwise she still seems to fail any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She finished 5th in the short program so she easily qualified for the free skating segment of the competition (since the top 24 qualified). That means she meets WP:NSKATE so I am voting to Keep this article. Papaursa (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 17:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Papaursa, meeting WP:NSKATE. Spokoyni (talk) 09:44, 10 March 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 Roman Griffin Davis. RL0919 (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Roman Griffin Davis

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

I really don't think we need a separate list-of article about an actor that has only won one major award and one local award.

This should be a section in Roman Griffin Davis. See WP:LISTCRUFT. Toddst1 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman Griffin Davis per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Griffin Davis - Really no need for a separate article.– BrandonXLF (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge God people, you don't need to automatically create new articles for everything just because other much larger topics have similar articles. Of course this should be covered in the stub of a main article rather than split out. Reywas92^Talk 06:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and close this out. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Roman Griffin Davis. Vorbee (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge to Roman Griffin Davis. Absolutely no reason for a content fork here. Hog Farm (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bye. RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Felecia

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: none of the current references constitute significant coverage in external sources. I looked for new ones and found nothing useful. Porn industry awards no longer count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did a brief search and couldn't find anything to demonstrate notability. This is one of the cases where I wouldn't be surprised if sources exist to demonstrate notability given that half her career was in the pre-digital area and the generic stage name makes searching for sources extremely difficult. However, those sort of cases really need someone to actually have access to those sources when they write the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only claim to notability was the now-superseded WP:PORNBIO SNG. Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The article lacks reliable source references, and searches for independent RS coverage yield only cast listings and other trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Center for Public Policy

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NGO. coverage is almost all local. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely cited organization including in the NYT; while most links are mentions to its issue statements, more significant coverage as an organization is at [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. While these sources are also based in Portland, I think in this case they have a reach that is regional or statewide per WP:AUD since the topic is statewide and these are major sources for statewide news. Reywas92^Talk 06:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Almost all local" coverage? The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:54, 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. Clearly the consensus is to keep at least an article about the UK declaration. Moving (and perhaps splitting) the article can be resolved outside of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British and French declaration of war on Germany

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

Britain and France did not declare war jointly. The reference used in the lead does not support the claim that it is used for. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to United Kingdom declaration of war on Germany (1939)—that's what the article is mostly about. France declaration of war on Germany (1939) occurred on the same day, but was a separate event. The British and French articles will have different information on national/internal politics leading up to the war. b uidhe 16:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That seems like a reasonable idea. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. This BBC article about the declaration of war says Chamberlain broadcast at 11:15, after the expiry of Britain's 11:00 deadline, and then goes on to say France presented her ultimatum at 12:30, to expire at 17:00, sometime after Chamberlain's broadcast. DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both countries declared war the same day, although not exactly jointly. The sources combine the declarations of the two countries, for instance History.com, BBC, The Holocaust Museum, United Press and The Atlantic magazine. I think it's suitable for Wikipedia to combine the two declarations. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title implies there was a single declaration of war encompassing both France and Britain, which is obviously false. Those aren't terribly good sources, and the BBC one, as I pointed out, makes it clear that the French declaration cannot have coincided with the British. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to United Kingdom declaration of war on Germany (1939). Notable topic but should have a title more accurately reflecting the content.--Staberinde (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should either be moved, as suggested by Buidhe, to narrow its scope to the UK alone or else to a plural title to clearly indicate that there were two separate declarations of war. I do think treating them together in a single article is admissible. Srnec (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to United Kingdom declaration of war on Germany (1939) On the assumption that is what the article is supposed to be about. Actually, it says very little about what a reader would expect to find in the article, except for the text of the declaration, which would be better in Wikisource. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to British declaration of war on Germany (1939) and purge of mentions of France. I am not sure of the precise events over the French declaration, but Chamberlain did not make one for them. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of the Jews in Vancouver#List of local Jewish schools. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Hebrew Academy

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

Not notable. Should be redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure of the target. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, fails WP:NSCHOOL. Jewish education should probably be the target but there isn't anything to add from this article. An article related to Jewish education in Canada could potentially be more appropriate as there is enough source for that, should pass WP:GNG relatively comfortably. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of WP:NSCHOOL says ...middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. Since this is left to interpretation, I would argue that the Courier reference satisfies WP:GNG (namely having significant, reliable and independent coverage), since discussion there about the Shannon Park Annex /Vancouver Hebrew School is more than trivial but less than the main focus. Since NSCHOOL leaves its requirements up to interpretation, my take on it is that we needn't require the full-blown WP:ORG requirements, which were written (it seems to me) to enforce WP:COI and WP:PROMOTIONAL tone in organizations, because there is no semblance of any of that in the article itself nor in the references, it being only a bare bones school article/stub. This also removes the thorny issue of where to redirect. StonyBrook (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick look at Google News finds plenty of good sources. The article needs expansion, not deletion. Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Change !vote to Delete. I spent some time digging up sources and cannot even find the history of the school, much less articles dedicated to it. The only thing that comes up is that it's the only Orthodox Jewish day school in Vancouver. It's listed in History of the Jews in Vancouver; that's enough. Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSCHOOL. --BonkHindrance (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BEFORE and WP:AUD. School has received more than strictly local coverage. StonyBrook (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to locality. Not a terminal school, it only goes to 10th grade. We're not supposed to say WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES any more (I guess?), but WP:MILL applies. John from Idegon (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of bare-bones arguments here. Some more in-depth analysis of sources, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article ~~Vancouver School Board~~ History of the Jews in Vancouver. StonyBrook, my primary concern is that the article if left will just be a WP:PERMASTUB. The Vancouver Courier article is only mentioning it in the context of a motion in the Vancouver School Board. I'd call it sheer luck the school got a mention in the way it did there. Other than that, it has some coverage due to it hosting Ben Shapiro once but there doesn't seem to be much that can be derived about the school from that. Though, I would say that with the information that is present in the article currently, it can be merged. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are correct that it is a "Permastub", what is your point? The essay doesn't have an issue with them unless they are "problematic", but what is problematic or unsatisfying about a currently operating day school? I don't see the justification for a merge with Vancouver School Board either since the two entities do not seem to share any affiliation, except for the leasing agreement for the annex space. StonyBrook (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would revert any mention of a private school from a school district article on sight. There is 0 relationship between the two entities. School districts sell or lease out of use facilities to private school operators all the time (what else do you do with a used school). Target for redirect is completely unacceptable. John from Idegon (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StonyBrook The school just isn't notable. It very clearly does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The point of the permastub is that, it has near no significant coverage on its own merits. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Raymie, Tayi Arajakate, John from Idegon, whatever the outcome here, I think the most appropriate merge target for this article should be History of the Jews in Vancouver#List of local Jewish schools, per what Yoninah has found. StonyBrook (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement. Raymie (t • c) 01:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Me, too. John from Idegon (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lidija Cvetkovic

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

fails WP:AUTHOR. 1 gnews minor hit. I don't see winning one award gets her across the line. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of multiple awards and shortlisted for others. Multiple literary reviews. Anthologised. For example, a sample:
- [9], [10]
  - multiple reviews in reliable publications
  - short listed for two state NSW Government literary awards
  - winner of a QLD state award
- https://www.poetryinternational.org/pi/poet/6156/Lidija-Cvetkovic/en/tile
- https://www.poetryinternational.org/pi/poet/6575/Editorial-February-2006/en/tile
- anthologised in New Music: An Anthology of Contemporary Australian Poetry by John Leanoard, review by Comerford, D. (2002). Australia's New Poetries. Antipodes, 16(2), 201-204. Retrieved February 18, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/41957239 [11] 203, 204
- [12] [13]
  - winner of Australian Poetry Festival 1999

Seems notable to me. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CONTN. --BonkHindrance (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nomination statement may have missed the mark, but that doesn't invalidate the many valid and pertinent arguments for deletion, including asserted GNG failure by way of WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, among other sourcing faults. No pressing reason to ignore consensus on procedural grounds. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cebuano Visayan State

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

~~Nothing but a blatant hoax.~~ Promotional content. hueman1 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Umm, could you please give evidence establishing anything is a hoax here?
Speedy Keep [was "Keep", probably, because I am surmising the deletion nominator simply believes a proposal cannot be Wikipedia-notable, which is simply false. Note we have numerous articles, supported by sources, on specific proposals and collections of them, such as Partition and secession in California. --Doncram (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Partition/secession in California has been discussed by numerous reliable sources. This is merely a state proposed by one person in an academic essay and nobody has written about his proposal. You should base your keep/delete comment on the subject of the article itself - not on what you perceive the nom's motivations to be. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy Keep, as an administrative matter, because nomination has been confirmed to be bogus by Мандичка and all other commenters. No one, not even deletion nominator has defended bogus nomination. We don't need to waste time by coming up with alternative theories for deletion. --Doncram (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, it is well cited and passes WP:GNG. I don't see any evidence of it being a hoax. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually look at the sources? —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main source comes from an academia.edu paper by the person who is proposing this state. None of the other sources have anything to do with the proposed state itself but merely reference Cebuano culture and tourism. Not a hoax, but just lacking in notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You agree the deletion is bogus, so we should be done already. I don't care to begin searching for other sources, etc., as if the deletion nomination were on different grounds. No one, Мандичка included, states they have done wp:BEFORE searching. No one states they have knowledge of relevant languages to be able to do proper searching. This is now just a fantasy project towards trying to delete something for the hell of it. --Doncram (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made-up one day by one person, and not commented upon by others. Perhaps "hoax" was too strong a word by the nominator, but searching for sources makes it clear that this has not received any attention from reliable sources. The article Sarani (community) is another "coinage" from the same author, which got an article here from the same editor, and should be deleted as well for the exact same reasons. Fram (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I'm sorry for that everyone, my point wasn't that clear. I thought you'd get it when you read the article and somewhat agree with me. But I guess, I was wrong. –hueman1 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Doncram. It's just a proposed state. It may be considered WP:TOOSOON. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AFD was nominated with assertion "Nothing but a blatant hoax", which is blatantly false. The AFD nomination has since been revised to be simply "Promotional content", which IMO is also false.

To quote from wp:PROMO: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. ....Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Which this is not; it appears to report objectively that a proposal for a state exists, which is true.

Opinion pieces. Which this is not: The article does not argue for a Wikipedia position about the merit of the proposal.

Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Which this is not at all.

Self-promotion. Which this is not at all. There exists no suggestion anywhere, except perhaps by implication of this bogus AFD, that author Pangan or anyone else is trying to promote anything commercial or otherwise by use of Wikipedia.

There is no merit to the revised AFD nomination, and again I think this AFD should be speedily closed as an administrative matter. It is wasting my/your time. It is not okay to use AFD to support a fishing expedition for repeated tries to come up with a valid argument. It is not okay to blast out random accusations. Note I also removed all of the negative tagging that was added by the deletion nominator to the article, which was a) excessive and b) included "hoax" allegation. I don't care to sift through b.s. to try to find some merit in any part of it. --Doncram (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but in ratio 60-45 (60 delete/40 keep): I'm not against the deletion nor keep, but for me proposed states like this are WP:TOOSOON. Also I noticed that it seems to place emphasis on the state's proposed flag and/or constitution. I think it's better to have a list of proposed states and place each on that list. But more compact. In short, there's a form of WP:COI. But I second the motion of the POV of @Fram: and @Superastig:. The original wording of the nominator is not important, but rather the essence of the deletion.JWilz12345 (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rather question grilling the proponent on the technicality of the justification which in my opinion is a form of harassment. It is rather best to politely guide people especially new editors time to provide a clearer reason. I would vote for Deletion as the article should be incorporated to an article about Pangan's book (which do not exist, the "cebuano state" article cant stand on its own as "the Pangan book" so it cannot be moved to a new name). This article relied heavily on the Pangan book and the "secondary source" did not support it and only described some component like what is a Philippine Constitution, etc. To weigh in to the truthfulness of the article, there is NO legal process ongoing that explicitly proposing a Cebuano Visayan State and it is a work of fiction written to be like a notable event about a "people's initiative'. The only recognized process are the Philippine Executive Order 10 that forms the consultative commission and the PDP-Laban Federalism Institute. --Exec8 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, I think it would have been better to speedily close the AFD, which would have left way for the editor or someone else to come up with a better AFD proposal in the future. But okay I guess the nominator is simply not going to withdraw their AFD proposal, and there have been some others' comments/!votes, so I acknowledge this AFD is going on.

Comment: Expanding the scope of the article to cover all or more of the secession/partition/merger proposals in the Philippines would be an option. Quick searching brings up others, such as the recent "Bangsamoro" proposal relating to Muslims in the south (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/philippines-duterte-approve-autonomous-bangsamoro-proposal-180722053525020.html this from Aljazeera], also this from Aljazeera in 2018-19; this from 2014, including about criminalization "of secessionist movements of Filipino-Muslims in the south", this from 1995, and more. Probably that is covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but a list-article can cover it in a summary way.

There exists Federalism in the Philippines partly about merging powers to the center. It's sort of unclear, at least from States of the Philippines about how many states there currently are, but the Federalization would create " 18 federal states and two autonomous regions in the Philippines – the Bangsamoro region of the south and the Federated Region of the Cordilleras of the north" per this from Asean briefing.

A country of our own: partitioning the Philippines by David C. Martinez is another academic work to consider.

I assume there have been other proposals for redistributions of power, for mergers/partitions of states, etc.

Covering this Cebuano Visayan proposal can be done in a bigger list of all such proposals, meeting our requirement per wp:ATD to consider alternatives to deletion, and in general developing Wikipedia rather than hacking away at it coarsely. Or if that is not going to be done promptly by anyone, then "Keep" is appropriate for this AFD, IMO. --Doncram (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD doesn't trump WP:UNDUE, and a proposal which has received no attention is not a candidate to be included in any list or other enwiki article. Fram (talk) 08:48, 26 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. After five years in existence and a full cumulative month at AfD, the article has not been meaningfully expanded or improved, nor have any appropriate sources been identified or added. The Sin Chew story identified here only devotes one short paragraph to the subject: two sentences describing the structure (not the gallery, mind), and one lamenting the limited hours of operation. Lest this bare-bones page sit stagnant for years more with no attempts being made to establish notability, I feel deletion is the only appropriate result. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melaka Gallery (Malaysia)

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

fails WP:ORG. Did a few searches in its Malay name but nothing indepth just directory listings. Previous AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malacca Gallery (Malaysia) LibStar (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful Malaysian tourist attraction to include in Wikipedia, and I'd hate to see this go. Online searches also indicate this gallery should be notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

where are the sources from your online search? WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe it is mentioned in this sourceThe adaptation of creativity in museum sector: A case study of Malacca Maritime Museum, Malaysia, and anyone else searching for sources should try the alternative spelling, but the mention in the source is in passing as are other mentions. Found it mentioned in some books too, such as Lonely Planet, but existence is not notability, and none of the sources show why this is notable. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are Chinese sources like these[14] which has covered it.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:06, 26 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 Government of Dubai. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of Dubai

AfDs for this article:

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

This title does not exist and there are no reliable sources for it. Umbermace (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Government of Dubai. It's likely not a hoax, but looking at the previous AfD discussion it does not appear to be a widely-used term either. I was about to say "Merge to Ruler of Dubai" but then realized that is a redirect. feminist (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Government of Dubai but can be recreated if more sources, lists, and tables are added. Ambrosiawater (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge You cannot apply an American phrase to the whole world uncritically and assume it's automatically notable for being a person who does something. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 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.