Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 March	31 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery, St. Mary's County, Maryland

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

Non-notable subdivision, fails WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an area which does not pass WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND#2. Wareon (talk) 18:18, 4 April 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)} 18:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hall Estates, Maryland

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

Non-notable subdivision, fails WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 22:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an area which does not pass WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Lightburst. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo Beach, Maryland

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

Not a distinct community, fails WP:GEOLAND #2. "Kangaroo Beach" is a townhouse development and is actually on the East side of Thompson Creek, not the West as marked on the map [ https://www.newspapers.com/clip/47694786]. –dlthewave ☎ 22:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability Reywas92^Talk 22:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an area which does not pass WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Subdivisions/housing tracts, census tracts etc, need SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 30 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Baltimore

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

Article asserts notability, but I can't find much evidence for it. The "DC Philharmonic Orchestra" that he was allegedly conductor of doesn't exist - the website (linked to in the article's talk page) is gone, and this site indicates it dissolved in 2007. GNews turns up nothing. There is a "Jon Baltimore" music store in New York but that is unrelated. Much of this article also seems to be fluff (Petting zoo experiences? Studying pilates and yoga?) I see nothing that meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to some articles in the Baltimore Sun ([1], [2]), Mr. Baltimore attempted to start a new "DC Philharmonic" in 2009 but it immediately collapsed and made the news for cancelling its inaugural symphony. It appears that his orchestra was never heard from again. Mr. Baltimore only made the news very briefly due to this mishap, and has no reliable media coverage of any of his other endeavors. Delete per WP:BIO1E. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doomsdayer520. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. He did not do anything notable. Trying to start an orchestra isn't notable by itself. Lots of people get in the news for starting an arts project. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable conductor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Not able to find anything significant. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh Church, Maryland

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

Old maps show a church called "Shiloh Church" near this point, but there's no sign that there is or was any sort of community here. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another error in the GNIS and another error by the negligent mass-creators. Topo with it marked as – GASP! – a church. Reywas92^Talk 22:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an area which does not pass WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found this WPA Guide description: "SHILOH CHURCH, 34.9 m., now dilapidated, stands by a camp meeting ground still in use." The church itself disappears from the topos in the 1940s but the camp is still there; I could find no mention of a settlement, however, and the spot is now just another Eastern Shore intersection. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 31 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 and redirect to Casey Mitchell (Home and Away). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Croft

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

A non notable actor, with only IMDB as a source. No evidence of potential for future expansion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Casey Mitchell (Home and Away), her only major role AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Casey Mitchell (Home and Away). I cannot find anything to indicate any degeree of notability for the subject in their own right, but given the fandom associated with that TV programme is a possible search term. Aoziwe (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Redirect: Despite a good stint on Home and Away in the 1990s, the subject hasn't had any other significant roles, as far as I can tell. Regarding sources, I was only able to find four mere mentions in TV listings in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald from 1996 and 1997 (at newspapers.com). I fully support a "redirect", as proposed above. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. It is time Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 6 April 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. Given the bounty of discussion I would ask a minimum of 3 months and preferably at least 6 before any renomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timber Wolf (comics)

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

Article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Legion of Super Heroes as non-notable, and move redirect to Timber Wolf (DC Comics) for proper disambiguation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How many other Timber Wolf characters are there in comics? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since people that say “not notable” will never check and make sure if the character is not notable I will add a potential sources list. My stance is Keep obviously and I am exhausted on explaining why.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a single article from a website that has zero standards, and another site that has released a mindboggling eighty one listicles on March 13th, 2020 alone. You seem to be mixing pop culture notability and Wikipedia Notability in most of your arguments. TTN (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I am not trying any more. I noticed more sources. But I am still voting on keep. Nothing will suit you anyway. Just like nothing will change my vote. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

Keep per WP:NEXIST. I've found one non-fiction source here:
- The Legion Companion by Glen Cadigan, TwoMorrows Publishing (2003)

Timber Wolf has also been discussed as part of Brian Michael Bendis' new Legion of Super-Heroes lineup:

"Examing Bendis’ New Legion of Super-Heroes Group Picture", Comic Book Revolution (July 26, 2019)
"What to Expect From DC’s New Legion of Super-Heroes" by Mike Cecchini, Den of Geek (Sept 30, 2019)

as well as listings for verifiability in the usual encyclopedias:

DC Comics Year By Year: A Visual Chronicle, DK Publishing (2010)
The DC Comics Encyclopedia DK Publishing (2004)

I think collectively this helps to demonstrate notability. I'll add these to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use these as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This largely seems like it's proving that Legion of Super Heroes is notable, which isn't really in question. They are most notable as a group, not as individual members._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H Christ. Not this stuff again.

For the Nth time: first of all, this article easily meets all of the 7 Virtues. Specifically, it easily meets (or can be made to meet) the WP:GNG. Most of our articles don't (as you'd see if you checked a large enough sample size of random articles). It's otherwise a perfectly good article, too -- better than our average article, in fact (again, check it against a random sample if you don't believe me).

Anyway, to delete an article that unquestionably meets the WP:GNG requires an extraordinary argument, far beyond "I don't think this guy is notable" which is what we got.

Second of all, the very first pillar of the Wikipedia:Five pillars is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". The opening words are "Our encyclopedia...", and this phrase is bluelinked to WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, which opens with -- I'll reproduce the format here:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge.

Wikipedia is freely available, and incorporates elements of
general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.

See where it says "Wikipedia... incorporates elements of... specialized encyclopedias"? They put it in big bold letters so that nobody would miss it. Supposedly.

So, what is the DC Comics Encyclopedia? What is the DC Universe? What is the Encyclopedia of American Animated Television Shows? All of which have entries on this entity (and there are probably others). Are these interpretive dances? Are they housing projects in Pueblo, Colorado, or stars in the constellation Cygnus, or 12th century Dutch priests, or any other thing except specialized encyclopedias? They're not.

And it's not like the nominator has not previously been shown this -- many times, in fact, I believe. He knows perfectly well that this entity is covered in depth, in several encyclopedia and elsewhere too. He does. He could edit the article to include these refs. But he's got a different agenda, doesn't he.

I'm pissed. I was getting ready to write an article, and instead I have to with this nonsense. This is not what AfD is for. It's tiresome and it's got to end. Herostratus (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody really cares about your soapbox rambling. Just say if you think it can pass WP:GNG and how. By the way, nothing that you posted helps it pass GNG. TTN (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We'll take this up at another venue. Herostratus (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any effort to establish notability before nomination?--Moxy 🍁 07:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends if you'd say the above links constitute significant coverage relevant to WP:GNG. I'd say I have a fundamental disagreement with many sources presented in these AfDs, topical pop culture stuff that barely mention the character, junk listicles from dubious sites, character encyclopedias that are entirely factual with zero commentary, etc. When I see links like those in a search, I completely ignore them as trivial coverage. TTN (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. He is a notable character and is one of the main characters in the Legion of Super-Heroes TV series. Plus, @Jhenderson777:, @Toughpigs:, and @Herostratus: are right about their keep reasons and I agree with their keep reasons. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. It has an entry for the character that contains all the real world information the current article does. The sources above show the character is notable as a member of the Legion, but do not show notability apart from it. The other media appearances are likewise instances of the character appearing as part of the team. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep no convincing argument for deletion. Artw (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To List of Legion of Super-Heroes members, which contains all relevant information. The sources identified contribute to notability for the Legion of Super-Heroes, but not for this character. The article itself is sourced entirely to primary sources, and as such this article fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep and redirect seem tight. Nominate to relist for 7 days
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Listings in other encyclopedias go a long way towards establishing notability. userdude 04:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members per Argento Surfer. The above sources show that the character's notability is tied to that of the team that he is part of. The important real-world aspects of the character are already covered on the target list, including his creators, his first appearance, and even the versions of the Legion he was part of. The only things that are not already covered there, really, are the copious amounts of in-universe WP:PLOT information. Rorshacma (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. The character is tied to a group and I cannot find any reliable sources that indicate the character is notable on its own merits. --Darth Mike^(talk) 20:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. GNG tells us whether a topic is notable of not. But notability alone does not mean we automatically have to have a standalone page and in this case, as is fairly standard for minor characters in a franchise, a section on a list page is sufficient. — Amakuru (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As even some of the supporters of nomination have acknowledged, reliable sources have been identified to establish notability for this article. WP:GNG is the standard by which we determine whether an article should be deleted, and it meets those guidelines, so should not be deleted. A merge or redirect discussion could always be raised on the article's talk page and/or the appropriate Wikiproject, since there is no clear and obvious consensus for that emerging in this AFD discussion. — Hunter Kahn 19:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not much to say here that hasn't already been said. Dark Knight 2149 10:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. I agree with the other redirect !votes above that the sourcing shows the team is notable, but not the character individually. Also, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the reader will be better served by being presented with information about this character on the same page as information about the team. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist - the alternative would probably have been closing NC, which could have meant doing it all again at some point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination fails to establish a reason to delete. Our policies indicate otherwise: WP:ATD, WP:BITE, WP:PRESERVE, &C. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am one of the keep voters and I am plan to seek more articles to show more notability and maybe improve the article. I think some of what @Toughpigs: placed is a good start but not enough so I encourage him to dig more and copyedit the article more (not just put them in see also). Bottom line I feel almost all the Silver Age Legion of Superheroes are notable. Yes I said that! So I am biased on the keep stance. With good reasoning. They have been around a while and rebooted with very popular writers etc. Especially this character. He even got his own comic book. He was even compared to (pop-culture wise) as the Wolverine before there was Wolverine. So anyway here comes the link dump at the bottom to help preserve the article even though Imperfect :

[3] Comic Book Resources may be a obvious source but it still remains notable.
[4] I assume it is a reliable source. Even though it won't be. If helps prove he got his own series.
[5] I know it's a satire site but it's a fair example of Wolverine being called a rip-off of the character despite Wolverine being awesome.
[6] another example from Screen Rant.
[7] Reliable source maybe?
The Comic Book Heroes: From the Silver Age to the Present (A book)
"The characterization of Brin as having an aggressive, animal side has been inconsistent (although he did once morph into a full blown creature and was called "Furball"). What HAS been consistent is his portrayal as a big softie at heart. He was also from a planet called Zuun, which is amazing and always reminded me of Zoony the Lazoon from Fireball X-L 5."
"Dave's design was, of course, based on Timberwolf, who he'd been drawing for a while in the Legion of Superheroes."
[8] CBR again
[9] Publication history detail maybe

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:22, 3 April 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) 01:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Butterwick

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

I cannot find a single secondary source to back up any claim in this article. This article has remained unsourced, except for IMDB, since 2008. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also did a search and could not find *any* news sources about him. He is an actor, but not a notable one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a virtually unsourced article. We need to do way better at removing such. His acting career does not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neither WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR is established. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 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. No prejudice to a renomination (though perhaps waiting some will attract some fresh eyes). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Al Ahmari

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Some sources are unreliable while some failed verifications. KartikeyaS (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm the original author here. I'd like to know which sources fail the verification here? The subject has working role in Ministry of Media and is sourced by Saudi Press Agency. Source from Khelejia TV also exist which might be confusing because it's subsidiary of Rotana Group. I believe there's language barrier and people may have been little confused. Lunar Clock (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking.

[10] - this has only a passing mention in one sentence. The news is not even about this person.
[11] - a youtube link of a programme where this person was invited as a guest.
[12] - unreliable source which accepts user-generated contents[13] like medium.com.
[14] is aggregated from this[15], a self-published press release by PRUnderground. Not to mention that this source is about the launch of a show.
[16] - this one is same as the ref #1 which is about a launch at Riyadh Literary Club.

--KartikeyaS (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just few points to add:

Ref#2 is from YouTube for sure but it was interview from Khalejia TV which as I mentioned is a subsidiary of Rotana Group.
Ref#5: You mentioned its about the launch of the show. The show is basically the creation of subject himself so I guess associating reference isn't a ::bad thing to add.

--Lunar Clock (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: It seems a bit WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject. However, since I'm not in a position to evaluate the non-English sources, I can't give a completely informed opinion vis-à-vis WP:GNG. I'll happily consider the opinions of others in that regard. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: I've removed and replaced a unreliable source. Added one from Riyadh Season and added two shows and their IMDb links. I'm currently following pattern on Bader Saleh's page. If this discussion leads to deletion of page, I request to draftify it for further working. Lunar Clock (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. That's why I've placed them at external links section. That's not what my point is. Lunar Clock (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, the subject surely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR and I guess its mistake on my part to write that way. I've fixed that and working on it to converting something close to Bader Saleh. Lunar Clock (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't found anything that would make him a notable comedian! KartikeyaS (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added notability maintenance tag. I believe this discussion is no more about the WP:NACTOR. Lunar Clock (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added this tag[17] yourself and still you think the article should be kept? KartikeyaS (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, maintenance tags exist for a reason and that's maintenance. Otherwise we would've deleted the pages in first place. And honestly speaking, I'm learning quite well with this discussion with you. Thank you. Lunar Clock (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 30 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 keep. Consensus is that he is notable as demonstrated by the GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BeeJay Anya

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

Does not meet NSPORTS for basketball. He wasn't drafted. He hasn't played in a major league in any country (not even G league), etc. He only played in college and I'm sure that's not sufficient for an article. I'm sure Wikipedia is not for "what could have been"; none of these sources are reliable. ⌚️ (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At first glance, he doesn't present much in terms of notable because of lack of independent citations. But I found many under Google News tab and added few. I think we should reconsider this before making final decision. Lunar Clock (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean... stories from years ago pertaining to his college games? That's the stuff I'm talking about. NSPORTS basketball says nothing about college. ⌚️ (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:GNG is justified here at least. What's your opinion?Lunar Clock (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is enough coverage for GNG, or that could be of encyclopedic value. ⌚️ (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of his college basketball career needs to be weighed in the balance of all time, not just passing news coverage. In that balance it does not add up to enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think I would be persuaded to keep if he had not gone pro, however Anya has played in Estonia. I think he might not meet NBASKETBALL but he meets GNG with sources such as [18]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still in the context of being a college basketball player which I refer to Johnpacklambert on regarding time, IMO. ⌚️ (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per Lunar Clock and Editorofthewiki. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunar Clock. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:09, 6 April 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) 01:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Zotz

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

After an extensive investigation, I do not believe the subject meets our notability guidelines for musicians or actors, nor general notability guidelines. While there is a smattering of sources (with No Depression being the only major news source) and a mere mention in a journal article, the subject:

Has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times;
Has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;
Has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions (just a few minor characters and non-credits);
Does not appear to have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following;
Does not appear to have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment;
Does not qualify for music criteria guidelines 1-12.

Perhaps you can prove me wrong! Thank you everyone for your consideration and your time. Missvain (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She has some notice in various indie rock publications; [19], [20], [21]; but I don't think this adds up to enough under the "non-trivial coverage" requirements at WP:NMUSICBIO. I can find nothing about her acting beyond the usual brief industry listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass any notability criteria and coverage is not enough to justify keeping the article on GNG alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NACTOR, and the article is not sourced well enough to claim that she passes WP:GNG in lieu of having to accomplish anything that would pass NMUSIC or NACTOR. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asbury, Maryland

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

a single homestead not on topo, no indication it's a notable community Reywas92^Talk 20:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of a community here. Map and satellite view show a single house and outbuilding. Does not appear on USGS quads prior to 2011; GNIS cites an Alexandria Drafting Co. street map. –dlthewave ☎ 21:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Country Life Acres, Maryland

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

Subdivision fails Geoland2 Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 21:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 30 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. BD2412 T 02:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Landing, Maryland

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

River landing with "Smith River Road" leading to it, no indication this is an independently notable community Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign that this is or was anything more than a river landing, apparently mislabeled as a "populated place" in GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 21:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per our SNG or GNG. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 4 April 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) 01:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, Maryland

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

Site of a former mill where there's now "Anthony's Mill Road", no evidence this is the name of a notable community [22][23], not even on '57 topo Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a local landmark at best, no sign of a populated place or community. –dlthewave ☎ 21:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a former mill which fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 30 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau, Maryland

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

As the article says this was a building not a community Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was a single building that may have served as a landmark, not a community. –dlthewave ☎ 21:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a former building which fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:19, 30 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calvert Acres, Maryland

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

Non-notable subdivision across the street from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Overlook, Denton, Maryland Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subdivision fails WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 21:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a subdivision which fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 30 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe Sarrini

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

Friend of Juanma Rios (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juanma Rios). No reliable sources found at all to demonstrate notability and nothing to confirm any of the biographical details in the article. The two albums mentioned are recreations of the songs from the soundtrack of a Disney TV series, both released on Rios's own label), and the filmography is two web series on Rios's own channel in which she dubs his voice over footage from the original French TV show. Richard3120 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article are either primary or unreliable sources. A Google search of the subject doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you are best known for being on a TV show sound track you are just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 3 April 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) 01:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Pedrozo

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Teenage YouTuber and friend of Juanma Rios (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juanma Rios). No reliable sources found at all to demonstrate notability and nothing to confirm any of the biographical details in the article. The two albums mentioned in the article are recreations of the songs from the soundtrack of a Disney TV series, both released on Rios's own label. Richard3120 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the references cited in the article are unreliable. A Google search of the subject doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside of what's already listed above, social media profiles seem dead. Surely a musician with 38 Instagram followers won't have WP:SIGCOV. Pilot333 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 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) 01:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neomee Shah

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

This is essentially PR for a non-notable alt med practitioner. The awards are not the sort the imply notability. The references are PR or disguised PR, as is standard in the field. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the user above. The spam article looks like a violation of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion --Cedix (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear failure of our fringe rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 6 April 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) 01:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carolside, Clarkston

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

Neighborhoods are generally not notable, no evidence that this one is an exception to the rule. Hog Farm (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added some information, personally believe this should be kept. Article has been substantially improved since prior comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk • contribs) 10:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Although the article looks better now, I don't think the topic justifies a separate article. The sources given are only passing mentions in general local history articles; "Carolside" is basically just an old farm name that has lived on through its use for a couple of streets and a primary school that were built over it. Interesting micro-history, but it has ever been a settlement in its own right, just a housing development that expanded Clarkston – there was never an ancient village of this name, or anything. The Gazetteer for Scotland doesn't have an entry for it, which I think is an indication of its lack of significance. At the very best, a merge to Clarkston, East Renfrewshire may be appropriate for one or two snippets of info. 14:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Jellyman (talk)
Note that although OS maps don't show this Canmore's map does but that doesn't necessarily show its notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:10, 5 April 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 Synthetic languages. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oligosynthetic_language

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

This term is not very notable. There is only one reference listed. The content of this page could be transferred to different articles such as Synthetic language or Benjamin Lee Whorf if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesVisages (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Synthetic languages. Whorf's proposal is a marginal footnote in the history of linguistics. Lacks notability for a standalone. –Austronesier (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Austronesier. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 14:21, 5 April 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) 01:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh Parah

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:NACTOR. Nono of the cited reference meet WP:RS Saqib (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I really don't know if any of the subject's performances satisfy WP:NACTOR, but I am unable to find reliable sources on her. I'm qualifying my vote as a "Weak" Delete because it might be that I'm looking in the wrong places and that sources do exist. Given that she acted in the 1960s and '70s, maybe someone will find newspaper articles on her. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:31, 4 April 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. Withdrawing the nomination as WP:RS added for notability. (non-admin closure) - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Shot Down the Red Baron, I Think

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

Incomplete film. Delete as per WP:NFF - The9Man ^(Talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this unfinished film is discussed in Indecent Exposure: A True Story of Hollywood and Wall Street. It is also listed in a Slate article here. Just because a film is unfinished does not mean it is automatically non-notable. We have Category:Unfinished films, and whether or not a standalone article is appropriate should depend on coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be just enough coverage, the Slate article helps. The fact that the film was also the catalyst for scandal helps too. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This has more RS coverage than a lot of Wikipedia articles about films that were actually released. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NFF. I added info from the Slate article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already notable. Lots of other film stubs that may need attention though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This unfinished film is notableTH1980 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 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) 01:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Segal

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

Non-notable politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. County commissioner does not satisfy NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete members of county government are not default notable, not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County government is not an "inherently" notable role under WP:NPOL — a county commissioner can get into Wikipedia if his sourcing is solid enough to demonstrate a credible claim of significance, but is not automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists, and the sourcing here isn't enough to him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and the level of coverage does not rise to the level above routine coverage for politicians. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:14, 3 April 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 creator of the article was indeed a Wikibaji sockpuppet. MER-C 18:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GREENSOLE

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

I am aware that this article recently passed AfD but it was closed before I could comment. Clearly, this topic fails the criteria for notability as the references all fail the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP and GNG. In fact, most of the references are churnalism. The reasons provided by the !voters in the original AfD indicate that they are unaware of that there is a higher standard for references to establish notability. The reasons continually reference "multiple independent sources", "legitimate sources", "the article is fine", "has enough coverage" all fail to address the content test which is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". For clarity, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP as follows:

This from The Hindu Business Line is churnalism with the classic formula of; introduce entrepeneur(s); describe problem; describe solution; finish with forward looking statement; include photo. The article also relies entirely on information provided by the founders, there is no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
This BBC article is also churnalism, relies entirely on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
This from Entrepreneur India is .. also churnalism and is also based entirely on information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
This from Vogue India is yet more churnalism, based entirely on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
This blog (because it is a blog) is not regarded as a WP:RS
This from DNA is also churnalism and is entirely based on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
This from The Better India is churnalism and is entirely based on interview and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
This from Ilaap is a promo for the company to encourage cordfunding. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND.
This from LiveMint is an interview/description of a teenager that uses the product and explains the background of why it is important to her. But the information on the company is clearly provided by the company themselves - for example this statement:With the money earned from the sale, it (GreenSole) plans to run on-site surveys to find schools where students may require shoes (especially if the average income of families in that area is below a certain level, or if the area surrounding the school is rocky), create more comfortable designs and to finally recycle more footwear for donations. Fails WP:ORGIND
This from Forbes fails WP:ORGIND.

My own searching for books and the other usual good sources yielded nothing. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I even can't understand why [user:HighKing this user] so curious to delete a notable Wikipedia article. It seems like there is some connection between User:KartikeyaS343 and user:HighKing.

WP:CANVASSing. ——SN 54129 13:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I researched few facts here.

Fact1: The HighKing is desperately saving the article in both deletion discussion: [1st deletion, 2nd deletion and this article is created by User:KartikeyaS343.

My Dear friends (user:Koridas, User:Mccapra, User:dibbydib) you all voted here in 1st nomination which was resulted as 'Keep' by admin User:Buidhe. I request you to all please share your valuable comments in this discussion. GRIPK (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC) — GRIPK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Note GRIPK has < 50 edits and clearly a Single Purpose Account as just about all of their edits was on this topic. I would further add that there may be an undisclosed Conflict of Interest. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too have a strong feeling about COI and based on their edit pattern, it gives a sign of sockpuppetry from Wikibaji. KartikeyaS (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article name Greensole was protected from re-creation, so creating GREENSOLE was a means to avoid this protection. Also blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent nomination, following which little is left to be said. Except to point out that, along with their SPA-status as noted above, their deliberate deceit in recreating protected material, their accusations of socking elsewhere, and notwithstanding their blatant canvassing immediately above, they surely an undisclosed conflict of interest. ——SN 54129 13:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the analysis above. None of the sources pass the very low bar of WP:GNG or WP:42, all of them fail either independence, reliability, or significance criteria. --Jayron 32 14:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing's commendably detailed analysis above. The sources do not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, so WP:NCORP is not met. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is pure advertising propped up by a SPA. Agree with all the above analysis. Canterbury Tail talk 14:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I already nominated it earlier but thanks to HighKing for the detail analysis. This capitalized name is used because Greensole has been salted for repeated spamming and also Greensole Foundation which was created by another LTA sock. --KartikeyaS (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice bit of analysis, HighKing, thank you for the hard work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as covert advertising. Thank you HighKing for ferreting this out. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing no evidence of notability, just sources copying press releases and maybe other publicity. Maproom (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the nominator's thorough rationale. While masquerading as an article, it is thinly-veiled advertising with nothing substantive to show WP:NCOMPANY is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:30, 6 April 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) 08:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulger, Colorado

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

It's an isolated rail siding now, and all indications are that it always was thus. Searching stumbles a bit over the common-enough last name issue, but searching specifically for the place gives very few hits, all clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even GNIS describes it as a railroad siding. –dlthewave ☎ 01:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a railroad siding. Nothing here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1983 European Cup Winners' Cup Final#Aberdeen. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Song (song)

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

Article about non-charting novelty football song, tagged as unsourced for a decade, and I can't find any reliable sources to add. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable or redirect to 1983 European Cup Winners' Cup Final#Aberdeen at most. Giant Snowman 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there no where to merge this too? Govvy (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1983 European Cup Winners' Cup Final#Aberdeen: It has been mentioned in this article. Other than that, I barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:23, 5 April 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) 08:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digraj Singh Shahpura

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

Article created by a paid sockfarm. There is not a single mention of this man in independant sources. The sources are all obvious paid puff pieces, some duplicated word-for-word [24][25]. Note that almost all of the sources are published on the same day (around 1 July 2019) despite him not having done anything newsworthy then, these are the same set of sponsored sources all our fake "up and coming entrepreneur" articles use. His supposed Forbes Magazine coverage is marked there as sponsored content [26][27], being listed as one of the riches Indians is a flat out lie [28]. In short, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:GNG, and WP:HOAX. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous participants: 4meter4, Eggishorn, Northamerica1000 – Thjarkur (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I said back in October that this was full of puffery but there was enough to suggest the subject was probably notable. I now revise that assessment. Thanks to Thjarkur for pointing out some of the deficiencies of coverage I initially though was in RS. With those now in great doubt, the subject no longer indicates significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The profile in Forbes magazine alone, which is an independent source, is a pretty strong indicator of notability. I’m not sure the characterization of the sources in the article as all paid for advertising is accurate. The nominator is going to have to do a better job making this case then glibly lumping all the sources as paid for/biased coverage because there are some immediately apparent sources that do pass the threshold at WP:Verifiability. Passes GNG based on the first AFD.4meter4 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a profile in Forbes, it's an ad in Forbes and is marked as such: The pages slugged ‘Brand Connect’ are equivalent to paid-for advertisements and are not written and produced by Forbes India journalists. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete In order to preserve Wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia we need to excise and stop those who try to turn it into their own personal money making pay for inclusion who's who project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Clear consensus to keep both here and in the previous AFD which was closed just a day ago, so early close per WP:SNOW. I'll follow up with the nominator on their talk page.result. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 19: "There was some feeling that…the WP:BLP issue could be resolved by changing the list to people who had died of the disease." Σαν μο σα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 06:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Σαν μο σα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 06:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that there was a prior AfD which was closed with somehow improper reason(s). However, I won't change my mind. Σαν μο σα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this violates BLP, so would any article under Special:PrefixIndex/list of deaths. The argument that (potentially false) information about someone's infectious disease status can cause them harm doesn't apply if the subject is deceased. userdude 06:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep — per the same AfD that was literally closed not even 24 hours ago on the grounds of a snow keep (which is actually not "somehow improper" as the nominator incorrectly claims) and Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#If_you_disagree_with_the_consensus. I think it's rather disruptive –a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT– that User:Sanmosa continue with this AfD despite the overwhelming community consensus reached less than a day ago to retain the article. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Importnant article.--Petar Milošević (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm amazed this is even a consideration. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Previous nomination closed 24 hours ago, nominator suggests a potential title or list criteria change which doesn't come under the scope of AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course, and nominator should be admonished. Brycehughes (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all of the above. --IndexAccount (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and snow keep We've just had a discussion and decided to keep. There is no reason to re-visit that decision now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to IAR and re-open the discussion. I am so curious that how come you all can ignore the consensus made in previous discussion(s) (what I mean is this). Σαν μο σα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 12:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked an uninvolved administrator at WP:AN to have a look at this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious snow keep, for the record--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on now, really not on to nominate again so soon after a snow keep. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we just had this discussion and, as far as I can tell, the nom did not provide an actual deletion rationale. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and snow keep. Given the previous discussion closed as snow keep less than a day ago this is disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpam Priya Choudhary

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, never won any state or national level election.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to set aside the ludicrously promotional tone of the current article as I've seen it. The fundamental issue is that this personal appears to be just starting out a political career. We're not talking about somebody with an established following who therefore has received significant reliable source coverage. Deletion seems like the right call to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. Could not find any sources beyond those cited in the article. userdude 06:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I created the article hoping there would be more info. Seems like I created it too soon. DTM (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of unsourced information has also been added, FYI not me as per the edit history. DTM (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akhiljaxxn, please make a non-admin closure of this AFD discussion as delete, or change to speedy delete etc. No need to waste everyone's time with this for too long. I should have nominated it long ago, maybe not even have created it in the first place. DTM (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if circumstances change. Founding a new political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia in and of itself, especially if the party is so new and minor that it doesn't even have an article yet, but the volume of coverage shown here is not enough to get her over WP:GNG for it yet. That could obviously change in the future if the party starts having more political and social impact, and/or if she actually gets elected to an WP:NPOL-passing office. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if circumstances change. I agree with the users above. As of now the subject fails the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges as she has not won any election. Cedix (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InCruises LLC

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

Significant reliable sources are not available to pass notability for a page. Created by SPA probably UDP. Joanrivers (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. userdude 06:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the article was rewritten and retitled from an article on Luženičky, a Czech village. This was done by User:Wrenvek, a single purpose account. I support restoring the content from Special:Diff/782621746, moving the article to Luženičky, deleting the page with prejudice, and blocking User:Wrenvek per WP:NOTHERE. userdude 06:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by this I mean I support salting. While the article has not been recreated, the fact that the User:Wrenvek bypassed NPP by moving an existing unrelated article suggests that they are an experienced bad-faith user. Additionally—this is speculation—based on the description as an invitation-only, subscription-based Cruise Membership Club and that the company would stoop so low as to blatantly and purposely violate Wikipedia guidelines, I suspect this is some sort of lottery scam that used its Wikipedia page to deceive victims. userdude 04:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting my suspicion of InCruises, the Spanish Wikipedia article es:InCruises (moved to es:Usuario:JhonnyAlvarez/Taller) describes the company as a direct selling company. userdude 19:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that previous version needs to be restored which was about a location. TolWol56 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note The original nominator of this AFD has been blocked as a possibly compromised account. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only significant statement in the article is "In 2015, the company became the premier cruise membership club with members and partners in over 178 countries", cited to Yahoo Finance. Not enough for WP:N. Mercy11 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the Yahoo Finance article is listed as PR Newswire, meaning the content is most likely a press release—thus, cannot be used for WP:N. userdude 04:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are all based on company announcements or inclusion in listings. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A lot of support for keeping. While arguments were put forward for cleaning up the article, insufficient argument was put forward for the topic itself not being allowed under our inclusion criteria. SilkTork (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican churches in Leicester

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

Non-notable list. We don't want a mere directory of current and former churches ~~in a city~~ in just any small random city, and not in Leicester in particular (modified 22:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)). If there are any notable Anglican ones in Leicester, those are covered, or could be covered at Leicester#Places of worship. Also they may be covered in List of Anglican churches#in England. wp:NOTDIRECTORY. See three recent related AFDs closed with delete or draftify decisions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester, to run concurrently with this one. Doncram (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claim is false as we have plenty of lists of churches in cities such as Oxford, Cambridge, London, Moscow, &c. Lists are valid content on Wikipedia per WP:SAL while WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant because that just tells us to avoid operational detail. In this case, this would mean that we wouldn't detail the times of the church services or the cost of a wedding. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, i modified the nomination statement towards saying that we don't want a list like this one, in Leicester a very small city, where there in fact is nothing special about the Anglican churches. I dunno about List of churches in London, that is qualitatively different; maybe it makes sense to split the list of very notable London churches out of the London article. For the Anglican churches in Leicester, well most of them should not be mentioned anywhere because they are so non-notable and there is absolutely nothing to say about them. For the few (3 or whatever?) that are notable, we don't need a mini-list, they should just be mentioned in Leicester article. And they are mentioned or can be mentioned in List of Anglican churches in the United Kingdom, anyhow, which provides far more value for the reader because it presents them in context with other Anglican churches.

And, though I am not sure whether i like it or not, there exists Places of worship in Leicester, too, more comparable to the List of churches in London because both cover all types of notable churches, not just Anglican ones. There is no separate List of Anglican churches in London because it has not been deemed necessary by anyone to split that out from the overall List of Anglican churches in the United Kingdom. And it will never be necessary to split out just the Leicester ones. --Doncram (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for similar reasons as the Catholic churches AfD. I imagine most churches (not chapels) in Europe pass GNG, and grouping them into lists by city seems to be the most natural way. I've counted eleven blue-linked items here and potentially dozens more that could have future articles, certainly too much to fit into the Leicester article, even if we decide to never flesh this list out. Daß Wölf 15:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know the closing admin will be smart enough to ignore the fallacious OSE arguments above. Wikipedia is not a directory of every church on the planet or in a particular city. List only those that are notable or designated historic in a consolidated article, but it is not appropriate to just tabulate the names of every establishment, be they religious or commercial. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are ten churches and a cathedral that are blue linked to their own articles. It meets its requirement for a navigational list article. Dream Focus 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OKAY! So we can delete the non-articles since we aren't navigating to them, right? And then we can merge the blue links to Places of worship in Leicester, so people can navigate among all the notable churches, conveniently in one page rather than spread across several directories of generic non-notable buildings for each denomination. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-the Baptist article was draftified despite three scholarly sources showing the notability of the topic. It really doesn't matter how many sources we have to prove GNG when the WP policies/rules on lists are vague enough for people to interpret them how they want. The WP policies/rules on lists should be updated to end this sort of behavior.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, the Baptist one and two other too-narrow Leicester lists were deleted or draftified. Because I and others who really looked at the sources identified which superficially seemed very relevant, we determined that there in fact is nothing worthwhile in those sources towards building a proper list-article. There was/is nothing to say about the numerous non-notable churches. I usually don't like for an AFD to be about cleaning up a given article, so if it were just a matter of developing using the identified sources, I would have objected. But the sources suck (technical term) for the purpose. The list-articles could not be developed, so should be deleted. Again, here, too. And there is larger principle that we do not want local directories of churches, or McDonalds shops, etc.; we only want a local list if necessary for size reasons to split out from a larger list, not the case here. --Doncram (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it wasn't the intent of the rulemakers on Wikipedia to prejudice the website against local topics. If that is the outcome we need to fix the rules, and in the meantime not follow them in a servile manner. As for your claims pertaining to the references, it is highly superficial to say that while Baptists in a certain town are notable, their churches are not. Sort of like how the Soviets said they had freedom of religion, but then demolished/converted to secular use a large number of churches that would have otherwise been used. Under ordinary circumstances, Baptists and Baptist churches go together.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover (E) is referring to assertions in the related AFDs by some that "Baptists in Leicester" and/or "Methodists in Leicester" would be valid topics (I did not personally agree), while the sources by author Rimmington and others did not support having lists of church addresses or the like (I did agree that these were inadequate for a church list article). E, please correct me if I am wrong. This included this exchange in the Baptist AFD between Epiphyllumlover and myself, in which I stated that one source suggested by E "appears it might support an article on Baptists in Leicester, though not about Baptist churches AFAICT", but I want to emphasize that I only agreed it "might" (and User:Djflem later in that diff points out that the source is not available online and could not be fully evaluated). In fact I never agreed that "Baptists in Leicester" or any of these was a valid topic, and somewhere else I commented that Rimmington's info about Leicester's Methodists and Methodist churches is excessive detail that oddly has been published (due to odd existence of local university journal, I guess), but is not useful encyclopedically, except perhaps as case detail in the general article about Methodism. Rimmington notably does not assert, much less establish, that there is anything at all special about Methodists or their churches in Leicester. So IMHO the Rimmington sources and the like can be mentioned as "for further reading" types of sources in a Leicester article, but a Wikipedia article should not be manufactured on the too-narrow / non-encyclopedic / nothing-special topic.

E, your views are clearly in good faith, and I see how you can be a bit puzzled why others (me at least) assert that these particular scholarly-type articles do fail to establish Wikipedia-notability of anything, especially when some seem to assert that an article about local Methodists if not their churches would be okay (which I don't agree with). I am happy to discuss elsewhere how the Rimmington sources plus wp:LISTN do not require or justify a separate Wikipedia article on Baptists or Methodists in Leicester. But this AFD is about the Anglican churches in Leicester, and discussion here should be about what specific sources here say. --Doncram (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep a valid list per WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again from this user, another unexplained, baseless use of LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about we do something about LISTN. If it can be interpreted so wildly different on such a mundane topic, maybe there is something wrong about the guideline. How could it be fixed so it is not ambiguous?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to E just above. I disagree that there is any problem with wp:LISTN, but am happy to talk about it, and how it does seem odd but true that scholarly-type sources seem (to me) to fail to establish Wikipedia-notability of "Baptist churches in Leicester" and the like. I'll open discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Notability#LISTN's applicability to Leicester churches issues, as that seems to be the Talk page for wp:LISTN. Maybe some clarification there would in fact help. --Doncram (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge blue-links article to List of places of worship in Leicester. We should not be keeping laundry lists of mostly non notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the notable churches to Places of worship in Leicester. Even if this does pass LISTN or WP:SAL, and I am not convinced it does, I think the notable entries would be far more useful to a reader when consolidated into one article along with the worship places of other religions than when sorted separately into a ton of articles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Churches are not inheriently notable per WP:NCHURCH and must otherwise meet the GNG or WP:NORG. A listing of all churches in city is equivalent to a business directory , which violates WP:NOT. A list of notable churches would be reasonable, but not a listing that includes non-notable churches. --Masem (t) 19:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable entries into Leicester or potentially Diocese of Leicester (the article places of worship in Leicester doesn't actually look to be a list of places of worship but a list of denominations that have churches there... which is weird). Not enough notable examples to justify a stand-alone list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is Leicester known as the "city of churches" in England (in OZ Adelaide has/had that title - although i note there doesn't seem to be one, see Category:Lists of churches in Australia)? if it does, that might warrant a "List of churches in Leicester" article with denominational sections and wikinotable churches only, but otherwise, Places of worship in Leicester can be expanded to include all the wikinotable churches (and other religious place) there. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LIST - it needs trimming, but nothing we can't manage easily. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearian, I don't see what you mean. Needs trimming? If there didn't have to be this AFD discussion, I would have trimmed it down to the few bluelink mentions in one step, then in another step removed those too after copying those into the List of Anglican churches (which I have done), and redirected it. "Delete" is what needs to be done now. What on earth do you want to save, and why? You want to keep duplicative mini-list, that should obviously be redirected/deleted? Sorry to seem maybe like I am badgering, but I really do not understand. --Doncram (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram tells us that he has copied material from the page to elsewhere. Deletion would therefore be quite improper per WP:CWW, WP:MAD &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have concern about giving contributors credit, but there is nothing to give credit for. I think CWW and MAD apply only for writing that is, well, writing. There is nothing which could conceivably be copywrite-worthy, be worth crediting. In this diff i did add a mere list of church articles. No more substantial than copying from Category:Church of England church buildings in Leicestershire or any other category. Appears like trying to "win" this AFD "contest" on a technicality that doesn't apply. I don't care about "winning", but it kinda irks me that editors are showing up trying to preserve nothingness as if to support real editors who wrote something, but there were no real editors who ever wrote anything here. I don't get what anyone is trying to protect; everyone should just be ashamed, and rectification = deletion is the right outcome IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed merger would not be rectification, it would be wrong. The list of Anglican churches, which Doncram prefers, has a global scope while there are about 16,000 such churches in England alone. Trying to list every church in the world on one page seems quite impractical. Splitting the data by city or county is more natural and sensible and that's what done by authorities such as Pevsner and the Victoria County Histories. Also, moving the entries to another list does not address the complaint of WP:NOTDIRECTORY which the nomination has as its pretext. It's not logical and it's not our policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTDIRECTORY is about deleting the 47 or so non-notable ones. The main point of requesting deletion is to put a stake into the wish to list non-notables; a simple "Delete" decision would be most clear and helpful, heading off future edit wars with some deleting and some re-adding non-notables. Sure, the world-wide list can/will be split by big geographic areas, when needed, but that doesn't justify creating thousands of mini-list articles of just 2 or 3 items each in each minor city or town or village. Nor does it justify visiting every city, town, village article which exists and splitting out each sentence or mini-paragraph into new articles. If/when legitimate Wikipedia coverage of Anglican churches in Leicester grew too big (which I think is never going to happen), then I suppose it could be copied to a new page. Like I said, there is no credit due to prior editors for that.
About sources, two of the three supposed sources in the article are just directories, the third is a self-published booklet which no Wikipedia editor has seen. You speak of "Pevsner" and "Victoria County Histories" as if those might be sources with information to use. But in none of the related AFDs has anyone ever used Rimmington or Moore or any other sources to develop anything at all (at least not anything substantial/legitimate), because there's nothing encyclopedic to say AFAICT. If, contrary to my expectation, P and VCH have content that some future editor could use, then that future editor should get credit for creating a new article, I suppose. Bye. --Doncram (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "as if" about Pevsner and the VCH. They contain huge amounts of information about English churches and Leicester is no exception. Here's a couple of links as examples of their level of detail

If people haven't mentioned such sources before then perhaps they have taken them for granted or they have little knowledge of the field. Me, I have attended events specifically about the VCH and have written articles such as St Stephen's Church, Ealing and so am quite familiar with them. Such buildings in the UK are usually notable and so it's just a matter of writing them up. There are so many of them that we still have lots to do and, per WP:LISTPURP, lists such as this are helpful in getting this done. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for humoring me by trying and digging out those links. I can read the first one but am over the number of pageviews to see the other. On one level, if someone in the future does decide to develop about such churches, then they certainly would deserve the credit. I don't like usage of wp:TNT in AFDs in general, but I do think that would apply: it would be a completely new article, and better to blow it up and start over, for their sake. But on a different perspective, well, I don't see merit in the detail there. It's all or mostly unusable statements about how nothing is known, or speculation; I would not find it satisfying, personally, to try to craft something out of that, myself. About St. Michael's:

The church of St. Michael was situated near the west gate of the borough, probably near the corner of the present Vauxhall Street and Causeway Lane. It is probable that the advowson of St. Michael's, like that of other churches in Leicester, was given to the college of St. Mary de Castro in 1107, and subsequently, in 1143, to Leicester Abbey. (fn. 25) The abbey certainly possessed the advowson by about 1220, (fn. 26) and retained it as long as the church continued to exist. (fn. 27) Little information exists about the church; it had a priest and another cleric in 1200, (fn. 28) but about 1220 it was said to be so poor that it was scarcely able to support a priest at all. (fn. 29) It is not clear whether the church had been appropriated by 1220 or not. (fn. 30) Probably it had, for in 1221–2 a vicarage was established on the same terms as that at St. Clement's. (fn. 31) / By the end of the 15th century St. Michael's had become very poor. There was no vicar in 1487, (fn. 32) and the church was probably disused by about 1500. It is not mentioned in the records of the episcopal visitation of Leicester made in 1510. (fn. 33) The parish seems to have been united with that of St. Peter's.

That is the kind of source that might be suggested in a footnote for "additional reading", only, if there was something legitimate found elsewhere to say about that St. Michael's, to attach the footnote to. I totally relate to your implication that there's plenty else to develop in Wikipedia (many many years) before it would make sense for anyone to even consider manufacturing anything out of that. It is way too much a stretch to say "oh we must save mere mention of a church", without providing any useful info, for the indefinite if not infinite future. This is my opinion, YMMV. Again, sincerely, thank you for digging that out. --Doncram (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to edit it myself, I would cut out a lot of cruft. It's easy to do but I was waiting for a consensus to develop. Perfection is the enemy of good enough. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:LISTPURP & GNG and numerous other criteria. And since nominator uses Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for delete, just a valid reason to keep, too, as per tens of other articles just this one. Djflem (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to either Places of worship in Leicester or List_of_Anglican_churches#Leicester. There's too many overlapping list articles on this topic. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. There are six keep comments, two delete comments, one delete or merge, and one merge. The majority of those involved are for keeping. The delete comments focus on the non-notable content of the list, but do not deal with the concept of the list, which is valid within our criteria. There are no policy based reasons to delete. However, the list does need cleaning up and sourcing. We do not know the accuracy of the list for example, so the list cannot be relied upon. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester

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

Non-notable list. We don't a mere directory of current and former churches ~~in a city~~ of just one denomination, of just any small random area, and in particular not just Roman Catholic ones in just Leicester, a small city. If there are any notable Roman Catholic ones in Leicester, those are covered, or could be covered at Leicester#Places of worship. wp:NOTDIRECTORY. See three recent related AFDs closed with delete or draftify decisions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglican churches in Leicester, running concurrently with this one. Doncram (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claim is false as we have plenty of lists of churches in cities such as Oxford, Cambridge, London, Moscow, &c. Lists are valid content on Wikipedia per WP:SAL while WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant because that just tells us to avoid operational detail. In this case, this would mean that we wouldn't detail the times of the church services or the cost of a wedding. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- (Adapting my own comment at other AFD) Well, i modified the nomination statement towards saying that we don't want a list like this one, in Leicester which is a very small city, where there in fact is nothing special about the Catholic churches. There are 3 with bluelinks; no info is provided by footnotes or otherwise asserting any significance to any of the others, at all. I presume they are no more notable than car repair shops, say. I dunno about List of churches in London, that is qualitatively different because it is about notable examples only i think, and about all denominations and about a huge city; maybe it makes sense to split the list of very notable London churches out of the London article. And the all-notable-churches-in-Cambridge list-article has 5 from before 1300 or so, etc. For the Roman Catholic churches in Leicester, well most of them should not be mentioned anywhere because they are so non-notable and there is absolutely nothing to say about them. For the few (3 have articles) that may be notable, we don't need a mini-list, they should just be mentioned in the Leicester article. And they are mentioned now in List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom, anyhow, which is obviously broader in scope, and is justifiably split out of the world-wide list of the same, and can provide far more value for the reader by presenting them in context with other Roman Catholic churches.

And, though I am not sure whether i like it or not, there exists Places of worship in Leicester, too, more comparable to the List of churches in London because both cover all types of notable churches, not just Roman Catholic ones. There is no separate List of Roman Catholic churches in London because it has not been deemed necessary by anyone to split that out from the overall list of United Kingdom ones. And it will never be necessary to split ou just the Leicester ones. --Doncram (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The London list has a {{very long}} tag suggest that it be split. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

or it could be culled of the non-wikinotable ones. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd naïvely expect a list of churches of a locally prevalent denomination to be exhaustive, much like a "List of high schools in X" or a "List of films directed by Y". Daß Wölf 10:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I imagine most churches (not chapels) in Europe pass GNG, and grouping them into lists by city seems to be the most natural way. I could object to a smaller list but, there are twenty potentially blue-linkable items here, certainly too much to fit into the Leicester article. Daß Wölf 15:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOT SO. It is not true that churches get a free pass for notability. Historic ones in Type I and II* listed buildings, yes, but run-of-the-mill current or former churches are not worth articles and are not worth mentioning anywhere. All the actually blue-linked ones are now mentioned in List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom, and they can be mentioned in the Places of worship in Leicester list, and they could be mentioned in the Leicester article, too (though the Places of worship in Leicester mention is more than enough, methinks. If/when you develop 20 separate articles and those survive AFDs and those further appear to be too much to include within List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom and within Places of worship in Leicester, then sure, we can discuss the need to split those supposedly too-big list-articles. Not happening any time soon, and I think I will always disagree about the need for any such split. --Doncram (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug up an unexpected amount of info about minor old churches in Zagreb while working on other articles about my city. I haven't gotten around to writing articles about any of those churches yet, but I'd be surprised if a large portion of 150+ year-old churches hasn't attracted enough attention at least vis à vis the building to pass SIGCOV. If these do form the majority or a near-majority of all churches, why not list the rest? Being that Leicester is also an old city in a developed country with a millennium-old tradition of Christianity, I have no reason to believe the situation will be substatially different. I'm not near Leicester and wouldn't know where to start looking for offline sources which is where I've found most of the coverage in my case; hence I understand that an ought-to !vote won't carry much weight. Still, a presumption that because work hasn't been done, said work doesn't exist, isn't a strong argument either. For instance, the list of UK churches you created is very short not because that's all there is to the topic, but because you've neglected to mention 90%+ of the churches present in e.g. Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom. Daß Wölf 18:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know the closing admin will be smart enough to ignore the fallacious OSE arguments above. Wikipedia is not a directory of every church on the planet or in a particular city. List only those that are notable or designated historic in a consolidated article, but it is not appropriate to just tabulate the names of every establishment, be they religious or commercial. Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-the Baptist article was draftified despite three scholarly sources showing the notability of the topic. It really doesn't matter how many sources we have to prove GNG when the WP policies/rules on lists are vague enough for people to interpret them how they want. The WP policies/rules on lists should be updated to end this sort of behavior.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge blue-links article to either List of places of worship in Leicester. We should not be keeping laundry lists of mostly non notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the notable entries to Places of worship in Leicester, Reywas92 is correct in that Wikipedia is not a place to list every single church in a particular place, and the churches worth mentioning can easily be consolidated in a list along with the worship places of all other religions in the main article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not obvious how it violates the rules. PPEMES (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current list-article is a violation of wp:NOTDIRECTORY. And there is no source identified which meets wp:NLIST's requirement that this group or set of things ("Catholic churches in Leicester") is a thing itself of interest/importance for Wikipedia. And it is redundant to other existing lists that include (or can include) all 3 of its examples. Note, this AFD could have been framed, I suppose, as a Merger proposal, or I could have just boldly merged it to Leicester or the larger Roman Catholic churches list-article (and in the process simply deleted all 47 or so apparently non-notable ones) myself, but given the brouhaha about the related AFDs, I think this needs to be done by explicit AFD. And I personally prefer "Delete" as the preferred outcome here to accentuate the idea we are getting rid of something awful, rather than characterizing this as "Merge" or "Redirect" as if to suggest there was anything of merit to be merged.
Please do see somewhat different comments in concurrent AFD about Anglican churches in Leicester. Here, if people want to save this list they should be presenting sources about Roman Catholic churches in Leicester, but no one is doing so. Because, I think, it is not a notable topic. --Doncram (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the United States, we have articles about the Catholic Church's archdioceses and pastoral regions that include lists of each church within the diocese. E.g., Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit, Our Lady of the Angels Pastoral Region or Santa Barbara Pastoral Region. This is entirely appropriate encyclopedic content. Perhaps the article at issue here would be better if similarly organized by archdiocese or pastoral region, but in no event should the content be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no substantial content besides mention of 3 that have articles, and these 3 are mentioned elsewhere. As Cbl62 knows, I am a big advocate and developer of list-articles in Wikipedia, by the way; i just see no merit in having this and the related local list-articles that add no value relative to other coverage in Wikipedia. I'm not completely sure what I think about the archdiocese-area type articles/list-articles Cbl62 links to, but those are clearly more substantial. And potentially sometime in the future the List of Roman Catholic churches in the United Kingdom could be split out by archdiocese or similarly (and an archdiocese is a larger geographic level than Leicester alone i am pretty sure), to make something like that, if there is enough development to justify splitting. But that potentially valid future purpose is not served by preserving the current directory-type list of apparently non-notable RC churches here. Sorry, maybe too much response by me, i will comment less. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is Leicester known as the "city of churches" in England (in OZ Adelaide has/had that title - although i note there doesn't seem to be one, see Category:Lists of churches in Australia)? if it does, that might warrant a "List of churches in Leicester" article with denominational sections and wikinotable churches only, but otherwise, Places of worship in Leicester can be expanded to include all the wikinotable churches (and other religious place) there. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:LISTPURP & GNG and numerous other criteria. And since nominator uses Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for delete, just a valid reason to keep, too, as per tens of other articles just this one. Djflem (talk) 14:40, 6 April 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. There is a consensus among non-banned editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanu Srivastav

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

No sense of notability, No RS, fails GNG. Created by SPA to promote the subject. Joanrivers (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. Could not find coverage of Srivastav beyond this article from "Virtual Strategy Magazine". The article is written by "The Backbenchers Inc", a company founded by Srivastav. userdude 06:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note The original nominator of this AFD has been blocked as a possibly compromised account. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article appears to be junk. I quote from it as it was until a couple of minutes ago: Bhanu wrote ''Hacker 404 Happiness not found'' while he was going through multiple mental disorders like [[Borderline Personality Disorder]] (BPD), [[Asperger syndrome]] (AS), [[Insomnia]] & suicidal tendencies. As at the time of writing the novel, he was on treatment and he is still fighting with some of these.<ref>{{cite web|title=HACKER 404 Error Happiness not Found by Bhanu Srivastav becomes fastest bestseller in India|url= https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/41889393/hacker-404-error-happiness-not-found-by-bhanu-srivastav-becomes-fastest-bestseller-in-india|publisher=wrcbtv.com|accessdate=22 March 2020|date=}}</ref>. Not one of those "mental disorders" is even mentioned in the cited web page. (The closest is an implication that the biographee would have benefitted from psychiatric help, for one or more unspecified problems.) Of course I removed these two sentences, but I wonder what other fictions the article might contain. -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consider the section "Early life and education": it has four paragraphs, three of which are unsourced but one of which is sourced to Crunchbase, which for this purpose is junk. And its fourth (and of course unsourced) paragraph reads Bhanu holds more than hundred Certifications from Institutes & Companies like [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]], [[New York Institute of Finance]], [[World Bank]], [[International Monetary Fund]], [[National Stock Exchange of India]], [[Indian Institute of Management Bangalore|IIM Bangalore]], [[Indian Institute of Banking and Finance]] and so on. (I wonder what "certifications" means.) Oh, but "Bhanu Srivastav likes to live his life in an anonymous way and is totally Google proof." -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what shenanigans have been going on with the nominator, but from my reading this is a promotional article supported exclusively by unreliable sources - I don't see that WP:BASIC or WP:NAUTHOR being met. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:49, 6 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gawler Primary School

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

Primary schools are not ordinarily notable, and there are no substantial independent sources to show that this is an exception. It is located in a heritage area, and that area would justify an article in which this could be mentioned DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted, primary schools are not normally considered notable. I can't see anything special here. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that there is not much recently on google, but notability is not transient. In this case:
- I suggest that there will be sufficient here to write something in-depth.
- It is the feature of a book.
- Importantly it is also a separately State listed in its own right heritage property.

Normally I would agree that an ordinary school is not notable, but it is not in this case. Aoziwe (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NGEO as a heritage listed property, agree with nominator that, in addition to this article, an article on the heritage area would be useful ie. Gawler Church Hill State Heritage Area. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has been established to be a recognized historic site. Even if it were just a non-notable primary school, it could/should be mentioned in a school district article, and redirect/merge would be preferable to outright deletion. The usual outcome for primary school AFDs is redirect. --Doncram (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing the AfD. I had thought only the overall property was listed, but I now see that the school is also. I would not have nominated it had I realized that. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 4 April 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scream (band)

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

The band fails WP:Notability (music) standards of significant coverage because all the sources in the article are extremely trivial and nothing about them comes up in Google search that meets the notability guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination indicates a pretty lackluster WP:BEFORE search and possibly a failure to read the article and its many statements on the band's notability. Any Google search conducted with more than the simple word "Scream" will come up with overwhelmingly reliable results. Do a search for <"Scream" + "Dave Grohl"> and you will find many articles about the band's history in reliable publications like Louder [29], Consequence of Sound [30], NME [31], Rolling Stone [32], Loudwire [33], Blabbermouth [34], and numerous others. Via a Google Books search you will find that they are covered prominently in several biographies of Dave Grohl, Foo Fighters, and Nirvana; and punk histories like Everybody Loves Our Town: An Oral History of Grunge by Mark Yarm and The Day the Music Died by Les MacDonald. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @DOOMSDAYER520: As stated in my AfD reason I did a search on Google. I'm not sure how you would know it was "pretty lackluster", but whatever. Your yourself say nothing comes up unless the band is search for with Dave Grohl. Notability isn't inherited. So, if f a bunch of articles about Dave Grohl mention the band in passing that speaks to the notability of the band itself. Maybe the guy is notable, I don't really know or care since he isn't the subject of the AfD, but the band clearly isn't. Also, notability isn't determined by the Wikipedia article itself saying the subject is notable. Good try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was a search of a basic word like "Scream" is unlikely to generate results about this band, so a more targeted search in conjunction with something more specific, such as the name of one member, will narrow things down. The exact same thing would have happened with <"Scream" + "Franz Stahl">. I did not claim that notability is inherited, I was instead referring to the longstanding guideline #6 at WP:NBAND. Read the sources that I listed in my vote and you will find that they cover the history of the band. Any history of Derek and the Dominos is bound to mention Eric Clapton but that does not mean they are only notable because of him. Nice try though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except when you put Dave Grohl + Scream into Google Search it comes with the exact same results I said I already checked and dont count in my nomination comment. There is no special more usable articles that magically appear by using Dave Grohl in the search or at least not ones I hadnt already looked at that you falsely claimed I didnt, because you thought you had some secret knowlege about to use a search engine that I dont. Like its not really damn obvious that more results will come up for a band if you search for the name of a band member along with it. As far as WP:NBAND #6 goes, who was the other person notable person in the band? Btw, most of his other lesser known acts dont have Wikipedia articles. There must be a reason for that besides that no one thought of creating them. There isnt an artice for Kurt Cobain's band The Jury or for the associated acts of many other notable musicians, because its not inherated. Adamant1 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 (only one criteria needed) and WP:GNG due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Rolling Stone, NME, Consequence of Sound, and multiple reliable book sources so they deserve to have an article and deletion would be unjustified in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think they pass WP:NMUSIC #1 fine, but it requires non-trivial coverage. So can you provide ref to the sigificant in-depth, non-trivial coverage you claim exists? Because that's all I'm seeing. The only Rollong Stone article I'm seeing is about them reissuing an album. Which doesn't count IMO. Its only like two paragraphs and dont really talk about the band in an in-depth way. So where's the significant in-depth, multiple source, coverage exactly? Adamant1 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not inherited. However, when reliable news sources such as the NME and Rolling Stone choose to cover a band, as we all know, they do so for a wide variety of reasons: changing tastes, famous associations, shocking behavior off the mic, and so on. Whatever their motives are doesn't really matter for our purposes. The point is that the band has gotten repeated mention in a way that makes deletion seem like the wrong call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doomsdayer520. Putting all of those sources together should be enough to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The nominator has failed to advance a policy-based reason for deletion and they are the only editor in the discussion who advocates anything other than keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GE 80-ton switcher

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

fancruft. Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, problems that can be solved through normal editing shouldn't be sent here; fancruft is solvable through normal editing, hence is not a reason for deletion. The chances of there being no sources in existence for an American railway locomotive is tiny, and so, as the encyclopedia isn't finished, this should be kept and tagged as relevant. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 10:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD isn't cleanup. Sources exist and a locomotive model is notable. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I felt WP:PRODUCT as it pertains to "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.)" would be applicable here. Graywalls (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen:, also see. GE 44-ton switcher. From how I see the guidelines, this is exactly what WP:PRODUCT is addressing. Graywalls (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard of WP:PRODUCT being applied to vehicles (airplanes, cars, locomotives). It would make little sense to merge this article into GE Transportation Systems (or wherever), and there's plenty of scope for expansion. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nomination does not give a valid, policy-based reason for deletion and so there is no case to answer. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:DEL-REASON The nominator fails to articulate a valid reason for deletion. WP:FANCRUFT is neither a policy nor a guideline...it is simply an essay. Per WP:NEXIST Sources exist and a locomotive model is notable. Lightburst (talk) 23:07, 30 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 nomination withdraw defaulting to keep. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HomeExchange.com

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

Despite its inclusion in the French Wikipedia , the company does not meet our WP:NCORP standards: The references are a mix of press releases, disguised press releases, and mere notices; not one of them provides substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources,. There are additional references in the French WP; I've checked them, and none of them are any better than the ones here. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Beretta, Giorgio (2019). European VAT and the Sharing Economy. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-94-035-1435-2. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
Frommer, Arthur (2009). Ask Arthur Frommer: And Travel Better, Cheaper, Smarter. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 50–51. ISBN 978-0-470-41849-9. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
Buczynski, Beth (2013). Sharing is Good: How to Save Money, Time and Resources through Collaborative Consumption. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers. ISBN 978-0-86571-746-6. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
Cobuci, Leila; Kastenholz, Elisabeth (2010). "The phenomenon of HomeExchange.com, analyzed for the case of Praidas at the coast of Nova and Barra". Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento. University of Aveiro. ISSN 1645-9261. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
Matuson, Roberta Chinsky (2013). Talent Magnetism: How to Build a Workplace That Attracts and Keeps the Best. Boston: Nicholas Brealey. pp. 144–145. ISBN 978-1-85788-598-9. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
Yancey, Kitty Bean (2006-12-17). "Home swaps trade on the participants' notions". The Arizona Republic. USA Today. Archived from the original on 2020-03-30. Retrieved 2020-03-30 – via Newspapers.com.
Frommer, Arthur (2010-03-21). "Budget Travel: Because of a movie, homeexchange.com is tops in the field". Cape Cod Times. Archived from the original on 2020-03-30. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
Nicklin, Walter (2018-08-09). "Trying on a farmhouse in Northern Italy for size". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2020-03-30. Retrieved 2020-03-30.

Sources with quotes

Beretta, Giorgio (2019). European VAT and the Sharing Economy. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-94-035-1435-2. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
The book notes:
§2.08 The Other Side of 'Sharing': HomeExchange and Blablacar

[A] HomeExchange: Bartering Has Never Been So Cool

Founded with the name of GuestToGuest in France in 2011 by Charles-Edouard Girard and Emmanuel Arnaud, together with twenty-two families of various nationalities, the leading platform for barter exchanges of accommodation turned its name into HomeExchange after the acquisition of the homonymous US-based company in 2017. Subsequent to the merger, the French company relocated its legal seat in the US. The platform operates a virtual marketplace offering its users a series of services to connect with other peers and to conclude home exchanges among themselves. More specifically, the platform allows host members to post advertisements offering residential properties, which they own or of which they are tenants, for exchange and guest members to respond to such offerings. The company also arranges for some special accommodation schemes, i.e., family, senior, disabled, and pet-friendly exchanges. As to March 2019, the platform the platform counts over 400,000 listed properties located in 187 countries with 10,000 new properties added on average per month. Other than being just a company, HomeExchange regards itself as a community of people committed to social values such as 'welcoming, sharing, caring, and discovering'.
The business model of HomeExchange can be summarized as follows. After registering with the platform and creating an account by providing personal information as requested, each member gains access to the messaging service provided by the platform, as well as to other details necessary to contact the other party. Arrangements concerning the exchange (e.g., number of nights or guests) are made directly by members through the messaging service provided by the platform. During exchanges, hosts can be present or not. In any event, members are encouraged to provide each other practical information and travel advices or, even, to create a 'home guide'. Both hosts and guests are requested to rate their own exchange experiences using a five-star scale. Exchanges between members of the community are usually concluded free-of-charge, based on a gratuitous loan for use agreement. Hosts, however, are permitted to charge guests with cleaning fees. Even the messaging service is provided by the platform to its members free-of-charge. For its other services, the company instead charges guests with a fixed fee of EUR 10 per night. An alternative form of payment is also provided. Users can in fact subscribe to an annual membership for a one-time payment of EUR 130 and, thus, benefit from accessing to an unlimited number of exchanges over a twelve-month period.
The book discusses HomeExchange on 4.5 pages.
Frommer, Arthur (2009). Ask Arthur Frommer: And Travel Better, Cheaper, Smarter. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 50–51. ISBN 978-0-470-41849-9. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
The book notes:
Not long ago, a travel company called HomeExchange.com was simply one of several firms working in the field of vacation and home exchanges ("you stay in their home while they stay in yours"). Then some folks in Hollywood produced an utterly unrealistic but wildly unenthusiastic film about a home exchange (The Holiday, starring Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet) in which the owner of a palatial mansion in Southern California swaps (for a time) her gigantic residence with swimming pool and extensive grounds for a cozy cottage in Great Britain. And reference was made in the film to HomeExchange.com, which is portrayed as bringing about the fictitious swap. The entire transaction, as depicted in the film, took less than 24 hours to arrange. When The Holiday was released, a firestorm of bookings occurred. The phones rang off the hook, and thousands of persons all over the world rushed to add their homes or apartments to the vacation inventory of HomeExchange.com. At the Los Angeles Times Travel Show, the owner of HomeExchange.com was in attendance, along with his expanded staff and a recently hired public relations representative. Since then, his firm has skyrocketed in size, and charges a fee of $99 a year for its assistance. If you don't snare an exchange the first year, you get the second year free. HomeExchange.com now has more than 20,000 listings—repeat, 20,000 homes and apartments around the world. While HomeExchange.com may not be the largest such exchange firm, it's obviously contending for the top spot, and should be considered for your own next vacation.
Buczynski, Beth (2013). Sharing is Good: How to Save Money, Time and Resources through Collaborative Consumption. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers. ISBN 978-0-86571-746-6. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
The book notes:
HomeExchange.com — A vacation home exchange service that allows members to trade their homes, condominiums, or apartments at a time that is convenient to both parties. HomeExchange also facilitates hospitality exchanges. WIth these, members stay with you as guests and then you go and stay with them as their guests.
- Where is it offered? HomeExchange hosts 41,000 lists in hundreds of countries. The US, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, and Spain are some of the most popular destinations.
- Who can use it? Both property owners and renters are welcome.
- Cost to join? There is no cost to browse listings. A $9.95 per month for a one-year unlimited membership costs around $119, while a three-month membership costs around $48.
- What about safety? HomeExchange believse that good communication minimizes misplaced expectations. Members are encouraged to ask questions about the home and neighborhood, and should always request to see photos and ask for referrals from prior exchanges. As always members should verify liability with their insurance company or landlord before swapping.
Cobuci, Leila; Kastenholz, Elisabeth (2010). "The phenomenon of HomeExchange.com, analyzed for the case of Praidas at the coast of Nova and Barra". Revista Turismo & Desenvolvimento. University of Aveiro. ISSN 1645-9261. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
Matuson, Roberta Chinsky (2013). Talent Magnetism: How to Build a Workplace That Attracts and Keeps the Best. Boston: Nicholas Brealey. pp. 144–145. ISBN 978-1-85788-598-9. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
The book notes:
Magnetic Leader Ed Kushins

Ed Kushins, founder and CEO of HomeExchange.com, based in Hermosa, California is someone who regularly invites people into his home, including the gentleman who eventually became a business partner. Kushins knew his neighbor was doing a home exchange, so he invited his neighbor's guest over for a barbecue. The rest, as they say, is history. The company has quickly grown to become one of the United States's largest members-only home exchange businesses. Here is what Kushins does to ensure his employees feel at home when they are at work.
[quotes from Kushins]
Yancey, Kitty Bean (2006-12-17). "Home swaps trade on the participants' notions". The Arizona Republic. USA Today. Archived from the original on 2020-03-30. Retrieved 2020-03-30 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
In the current movie The Holiday, Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz play disheartened singles who swap homes with each other for vacation and find new loves.
The film's director, Nancy Meyers got inspired while browsing the real-life HomeExchange.com Web site, deciding that two strangers who step into each other's worlds is a great plot device. HomeExchange is prominently featured in the film.
"We lucked out," says HomeExchange.com president Ed Kushins, who says some clients who use the service do find romance while vacationing in a stranger's home.
Frommer, Arthur (2010-03-21). "Budget Travel: Because of a movie, homeexchange.com is tops in the field". Cape Cod Times. Archived from the original on 2020-03-30. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
The article notes:
When Ed Kushins agreed four years ago to have his company, HomeExchange.com, featured in the Hollywood film “The Holiday,” he didn’t fully foresee the transformation that lucky break would bring. A big hit that featured Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz exchanging homes and finding love as a result, the film brought an avalanche of new members to HomeExchange.com, making it undoubtedly the single largest U.S. company in the field.
As a result, HomeExchange.com now has more than 32,000 home-exchange listings (35 percent in the U.S., the remainder around the world) and continues to receive between 400 and 500 new listings each week.
Nicklin, Walter (2018-08-09). "Trying on a farmhouse in Northern Italy for size". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2020-03-30. Retrieved 2020-03-30.
The article notes:
Unlike third-party websites such as TripAdvisor.com or Booking.com, which generate fees and commissions for themselves with each booking, HomeExchange operates more like a cooperative. Started in 1992, HomeExchange.com now boasts 65,000 members worldwide with over 1 million exchanges in more than 150 countries. Membership is $150 per year, allowing you to list your own property to be made available for exchange. You can then communicate directly with other members to propose exchanges, which don’t have to happen simultaneously.

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

Cunard (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accept ref. 1 as high-quality significant independent coverage; ref .2 is a travel guide I would normally be skeptical about, Ref.3 seems a routine listing. Ref 4 probably is OK, though not visible; Ref 5. is PR ; Ref. 6 is a mention; Ref.7 , by the same author as ref 2, is in more detail, ( presumably a syndicated feature--I doubt that particular newspaper was the only place it was published) that reads in large part like a PR interview, Ref. 8 is a routine listing . So what we have is one good academic book, 1 probably good academic article, 2 articles fro ma well-know travel guide writer, andsome miscellaneous.

1 & 4 seem sufficient for an article, and I am withdrawing the AfD, with my customary thanks to Cunard. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the sources and withdrawing the AfD, DGG (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 08:44, 5 April 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IslamOnline

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

Non notable Muslim Brotherhood linked website. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as per "Guardian.com". - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 09:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Citations added---Irshadpp (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AaqibAnjum. Article requires expansion and cleanup, not deletion. Nomination tainted by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Havradim (talk) 01:49, 31 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nautyca

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article is filled with unreliable sources that are either gossip blogs or promotional websites. A Google search of the subject doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. The accolade he is a recipient of is not notable. The subject is still an up-and-coming artist who has not made a mark in the Ghanaian music industry. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 30 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakhi for South Asian Women

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

Fails GNG IW. (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the fluff and promotional unsourced material and added information from reliable sources. There's enough for GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Pef improvements made by Meglibrarygirl.BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invoking WP:HEY. Not sure why this one needed reposting though, I agree with the keeps above. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:25, 4 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Kalogridis

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

Fails GNG IW. (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has no reliable sources behind it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close per WP:COMPETENCE. Kalogridis is a well-known and widely reviewed writer. Even a cursory check reveals, for example, four reviews in the current decade at Kirkus, nine at Publisher's Weekly, several at Library Journal, about twenty in various SFFH genre publications, and even a favorable piece in the New York Times Book Review. Google Scholar shows that her works are frequently discussed in academic publications and regarded as substantial. It is painfully apparent that neither the nominator nor the delete !voter have made the slightest effort to actually evaluate the actual notability of this author. Their efforts damage this encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews at Publishers Weekly and others cited by Hullaballoo. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo's arguments. Caro7200 (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, works are "well known", entering her name in WorldCat reveals her books are held in 100s of libraries, plus their are also numerous reviews of them, thanks to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above for mentioning these. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 31 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) 08:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conor A. Gallagher

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. He has published two books, but the only in-depth review I was able to find is this from MarxAndPhilosophy.org. I searched on JSTOR, but I did not find any reviews of his books in academic journals. The only other sources I could find online were brief biographical snippets like this and this—not sufficient to meet GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Loksmythe (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note these sources: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08854300.2018.1508958 http://leonaa01.site.aplus.net/fbi-memos/index.html

I may just be too inexperienced at this, so I you want to delete, I'll pick this up another time. tx.Leonard 04:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)04:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonaa01 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Agree, surprising lack of coverage, especially considering that his books were blurbed by some respected authors/academics. Maybe his next book will push him over. Caro7200 (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found 1/4 of a review (a review of four books, one coauthored by him) at doi:10.1080/08935696.2019.1650573 but even with the other ones linked above that's not quite enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, and the article presents no other case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 30 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. BD2412 T 20:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Mattos

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

The article doesn't even have a single reference covering the biographer in depth. All the references only cite him and some of his projects. Plus, it reads like an advertisement piece. In my point of view, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SOAP. SirEdimon (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the work is not sufficient to meet WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator that this reads like a paid-for advertising piece, and that the sources don't establish notability per GNG or WP:NPROF. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 6 April 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) 08:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Vacation Media

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

A non-notable Russian company, the article is very promotional. James Richards 02:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete potential advert. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ti rewrite. 11:36, 02 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.181.1.83 (talk)
Weak delete. I like having articles on publishers as it helps estabilish reliability of sources, but they still must meet WP:NORG. This one doesn't do so, and as it is very new (2017), I doubt it can. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King moe

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

A non-notable rapper with little coverage from reputable sources James Richards 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I can find are social media, the usual streaming services, and some promotional announcements that he submitted to magazines himself. No significant coverage in reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:12, 3 April 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granada Cinema

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

There were literally hundreds of Granada Cinemas at its peak. This disambiguation page should be deleted to encourage article creation. Laun chba ller 00:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are three articles here; two are differently-named (I re-named the Woolwich venue to its current name), one simply doesn't exist. Right now, this isn't disambiguating anything and a simple link-out to Granada plc should suffice for any former venue. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I cannot see which criteron under WP:R#DELETE is being used and the proposer does not mention which of these criteria is being used. Therefore keep. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid dab with 3 entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION. This is exactly what dabs are for. Boleyn (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion does not encourage article creation; quite the contrary as deletionism tends to have the effect of driving good-faith contributors away. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a perfectly valid disambiguation page (although the picture should be deleted). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:D "It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek." The page does what it says. Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious keep. Perfectly valid disambiguation page. Obviously we only keep articles about notable Granada Cinemas. "Encouraging article creation" is not a valid reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to provide access to three valid articles. Nothing here to discourage future article creation. PamD 15:42, 3 April 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) 08:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine, Wyoming

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

This one was another bear to search, between the last name problem and the city in California, which has a Wyoming Street, and I'm not convinced that there isn't something to be found that way. But the 1950 topo edition shows things clearly: it's a former siding on the now-abandoned Milwaukee Road line, and there was never a town here. Mangoe (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Chicago and North Western Railway Company source mentions a "town"; if this is accurate, it hasn't received enough coverage to meet GEOLAND2/GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 19:30, 4 April 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. As a failure of WP:V. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wuzhou

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

Another unverifiable article on a Central Plains War battle. Two sources provided are a Taiwanese book which appears primary source and what looks like a self published website, which supposedly contains the battle (although I could not find it while searching its Chinese name from zhwiki). Neither of these sources count towards GNG. I also checked some RS books on the Central Plains War and could not verify the occurrence of this battle. It's not mentioned on Central Plains War article, so should not be redirected. b uidhe 12:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 12:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 12:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m not able to check Chinese sources but take it on trust that the nominator has searched thoroughly, so this must be a hoax or some greatly exaggerated minor event. Mccapra (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also this [35] deletion discussion. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ or Draftify In reply to a perfectly reasonable assumption, this is not a hoax or minor event, but a considerable battle. Deletion guidelines say "Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing."

We also say Don't bite the newbies which appears to apply here. The [editor's history] shows January 2020 creation, and work and progress on several related articles. Editors have offered help in meeting guidelines, and the editor should follow them on sources and notes.

I searched WorldCat for the source, which is probably a local reprint of 美軍顧問團史政處編纂 United States Military Assistance Advisory Group in Taiwan (1967). 中國現代軍事史主要戰役表 Zhongguo Xian Dai Jun Shi Shi Zhu Yao Zhan Yi Biao. Taipei.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).

To be sure, this is not as big as Battle of Waterloo, but there are a few hits here and here to show that there actually was one. ch (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CWH, Thanks for your comment. I already found those sources during my BEFORE search, but they refer to a battle in May or June. The article seems to be about a different battle, which it states took place in January. b uidhe 00:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BuidheThanks for following up and for your original nomination. I have now looked both at this and the other articles in the Central Plains War category and do not want to discourage good work, but now see the problem. As far as I can tell, they are translations from the ZH Wiki. Zee money, who is an experienced editor, and Jackson767, who is relatively new, have done the initial work and might want to comment on how they plan to expand these stubs and why they should not simply be part of Central Plains War.ch (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Even if the battle is mentioned somewhere, the article lacks footnote citations, and might contain WP:OR. Since no verifiable sources have been presented, we have to consider WP:V. At best, I can see this being draftified. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, I have been unable to find that much significant coverage. Koridas (Speak) 18:24, 4 April 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.