Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 February	8 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Riasat Alve

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

Non-notable photographer, tagged as such for five years. His photos are interesting, have won some amateur prizes, and are on various websites. But aside from the three paragraphs in The New Yorker's Photo Booth blog (which describes him as an emerging photographer), there isn't significant coverage about him in independent, reliable, secondary sources. We have these requirements to ensure we can write a whole and balanced article that isn't promotional. At this point in his career we can't write such an article because he does not meet WP:GNG or any of the subject-specific criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Worldbruce (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This photographer has not received enough significant coverage to pass the notability guidelines. Qono (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks enough sourcing to properly establish notability, and the article is so short, it is virtually a stub.TH1980 (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think that we should have articles on established artists and leave those who are still emerging until they have a career and a body of work that we could say something meaningful about. Winning World Press Photo of the Year is one thing, but nominated for a World Press Photo masterclass and entering the Sony World Photography Awards competition isn't quite the same. Winning "Explore to Inspire" is certainly an accomplishment, but it's an amateur competition, and not a notable award. I think it's too soon for an encyclopedia article. Vexations (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Chigozie Ononiwu

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

Article was previously nominated for PROD under the rationale "Fails WP:NFOOTY." Article was deproded by the author without providing a reason. Previous rational still holds up, and the article also fails WP:GNG. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 17:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaprice Kisa

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

Should not have had to come to this; should’ve been a simple A7. NO notability whatsoever! NO sources. Promotional garbage she probably wrote herself and “Caprice Edwards” isn’t notable either. ⌚️ (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Comment - No opinion yet on notability claims, I will note that WP:BEFORE should have picked up that there were sources until their inappropriate removal in this edit as "Removed outdated references". Restoring for the purposes of this afd debate. Spokoyni (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reviewing the sources, which are mostly mention her in passing in relation to her appearance and progression on the television contest, there's no sufficient claim of notability. The one source that is more indepth is a local news interview, but again there are no suitable achievements to hang this onto. Google searches turn up nothing more than routine coverage, and no indication that her music or modeling career has yet, or will, reach the stage of passing the WP:GNG. Spokoyni (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Spokoyni. I couldn't find better sources myself. PK650 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Kumar Bose

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

His relatives are considered as prominent which does not establish his notability. And the sources are in the article all are either of his candidancy news or joining politics news as where he was mentioned there Subhas Chandra Bose's grandnephew. He was not a legislator or parliamentarian. The article fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Party officials are not automatically notable, and there is not enough coverage. Notability, as we all know, is not inherited except for royalty. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharati Ghosh

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

The article has 5 sources. Of them 3 about her candidancy and other two are routine coverage. The article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, never elected. No major public post held.--DBig Xrayᗙ 20:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL and WP:GNG fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SOAP. Party officials are not automatically notable, and there is not enough coverage. Here wards are minor. There is an ongoing campaign, which she might win, but we are not a soap-box. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Jolly

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

A losing candidate in election. Even it has one souce which is about his candancy. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG and other criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Losing candidates don't qualify for WP:NPOL unless they satisfy WP:GNG, which in the case of this BLP, it doesn't. Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN as this individual was a losing candidate in an election. Candidates do not get articles for only being candidates, they have to have done something more significant. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 10:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding office, not just running for it. But this doesn't even attempt to claim that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, and the existence of just one short blurb of routine reportage of election results is not enough "coverage" to hand him a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges as the subject never won any elections. --DBig Xrayᗙ 05:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SOAP. Lost their only campaign for public office, as I did. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utah FC

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

Notability is questionable at best, with one source (a primary one, at that), so there is almost no referencing. I did a Google search, and it only verified what the article says. This article just may not be notable enough to stay in Wikipedia... King of Scorpions 19:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. King of Scorpions 19:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. King of Scorpions 19:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted G5, now-blocked sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjuni Morgaon Bus Station

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

Non-notable bus stop. Independent coverage not found. Note: picture is of a nearby train station but this article is about a bus stop. b uidhe 18:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 18:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 18:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, appears to be a non-notable bus stop. (I might support a redirect to the photographed Arjuni railway station, if someone could confirm they're the same place, which I can't tell for sure even after trying to figure it out on my own.) Shelbystripes (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaya Wijeyekoon

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

A British consultant surgeon who appeared in UK media in May 2016 when they performed an operation on a 99-year old cancer patient. Apart from that event, they show no other signs of RS to support GNG. Not a Professor, and no notable awards. Ask the community to decide. Britishfinance (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC) Britishfinance (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS as well as lack of WP:GNG—sources do not cover Wijeyekoon in depth. b uidhe 18:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Bus Route 150 Williams Landing Railway Station To Tarneit Station

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

Completely non notable bus route. Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL Ajf773 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom, this is a non-notable bus stop. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not notable enough for its own article, and adequately covered in a more appropriate place at List of bus routes in Melbourne#100-199. Bookscale (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Could not find any IRS. Cabrils (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual bus routes are normally considered non-notable, and this article has no sources that would lead me to think otherwise. In fact, the article has only one sentence of prose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything to indicate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be draftified via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business and employment co-operative

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

No references in over a decade, and it is full of biased content. I tried salvaging it, but I think deletion is a better option. King of Scorpions 17:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. King of Scorpions 17:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - the subject itself meets notability requirements. A simple WP:BEFORE] yields plenty of references and BECs are well understood and clearly notable. However the nominator is not putting this for deletion because of notability concerns, but because of the state of the article. Deletion is not for cleanup and I would normally suggest tagging it and trying to find a wiki project to attach it to. Although that second option is available, the article itself has been tagged regarding lack of citations since 2009 so tagging did not help. Wikipedia may have no deadlines, but 11 years without citations suggests this needs to be in draft until someone feels the issue is important enough to develop. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MoSys

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

Deleted via PROD a couple weeks ago, PROD contested at WP:REFUND just now. I agree with the PROD by Piotrus, who wrote: No evidence this company passes WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. Sources/coverage seem limited to pess releases and like, no awards, etc. Just business as usual. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my prod rationale. Not seeing anything outside WP:LISTED, and that's not enough. As far as I can tell the undelete request had no rationale, and also mentioned Monolithic Technology Systems which I'll link so we can see if it is restored too and if it needs and Afd too.(This is confusing....). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, the page had been moved. I'll restore those redirects too. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This company releases Third Quarter 2019 Financial Results recently:https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-11-06/mosys-inc-reports-third-quarter-2019-financial-results> also available into yellow pages: https://www.yellowpages.com/santa-clara-ca/mip/mosys-inc-458142730 KJanos1396 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, also press releases are not sufficient as they are not independent. See also WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thx readed,in my opinion, MoSys legacy products are pieces of history such as (MDRAM).KJanos1396 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not GNG. Dorama285 22:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons already given. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source that is not MoSys itself is IBM which lists it as a partner. There are currently no independent sources cited in the article at all. A search shows that other potential sources do exist, but they're all the kind of routine coverage one would expect to see in trade publications. Vexations (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shai Zamanian

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

Biography of an attorney. Of the 10 references: one goes to the attorney's company, the other articles are about a certain type of visa and use the attorney as a source in the article. Two of the articles are duplicates (gulfnews' article is just a reprint of the LATimes article, which mention the attorney once.) In short, the articles are about something else (a specific visa), or about the firm in context of the visa (the arabianbusiness article), not about the attorney. He has not received significant coverage, per WP:GNG. I can find no evidence that this person is a visiting researcher at Harvard via Google searches, outside of promotional/non-biased links (e.g. nothing at Harvard.edu).

I also think that this account could promotional in nature; they have a short edit history, most of which has them adding categories or doing very slight maintenance like [1].

Speedy declined. Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows him as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and my standards for attorneys; literally fails every factor. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gyaneshwar Dayal

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

The article is written in a promotional manner so that it doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. The subject clearly fails WP:GNG and the content is supported by two bare urls. The article has provided IMDb as a main reference which is unacceptable according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines as underlined by Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Abishe (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC, the single reference from thehindu appears to be about as good as it gets for sourcing, and even it can hardly be considered significant. Searches yield only self-published and unreliable sources. I tried some google translate searching too and came up dry aside from self-published stuff, would be willing to reconsider if someone who's better at that sort of thing finds that there is indeed multiple reliable independent non-english sourcing that exists. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hexaware Technologies

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

I deleted this article via PROD in December 2019, and undeletion was just requested. I agree that this midlevel firm does not meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG and believe that having a discussion about it will settle the issue of notability for once and for all. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is it really that easy to get an article un-deleted? I would think it wouldn't be that easy to bring back an article that was originally deleted on notability grounds, unless notability has improved some since it was deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, WP:REFUND does provide the opportunity for undeletion of articles deleted via PROD. It considers the refund request to be akin to objecting to the PROD within the seven day time period. By deleting it via discussion, it can't be resurrected again that easily. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total advert. None of the sources seem to be reliable either. Hopefully this settles things and the article doesn't come back again. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles are a plague. Dorama285 19:37 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta Shalini

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

The article is an example of WP:REFBOMB. The sources in the article are from routine coverage or not reliable media or blog. He She did not hold any constitutional post. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First thing, it is she not he. Second thing, it indeed fails NPOL.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: It's corrected now.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL since the subject has never won any national or state level elections.--DBig Xrayᗙ 06:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. Not a major, national officer of a major party, and failed candidate. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 01:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Surendran (politician)

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

A losing candidate who never elected as an MLA or MP. 43 sources from self published and routine coverage in the article made it WP:REFBOMB. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a forum to post campaign bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NPOL, Article was created by an SPA and could possibly be the work of the BJP's promotional editing staff. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL since the subject has never won any national or state level elections. I also agree with DGG from the previous nom that "we have consistently held that being the head of a state political party (as distinct from the national head) is not intrinsically notable. Some of the articles used as references do not even mention him ( ref.7 ) --the others are his press releases or minor local politics."--DBig Xrayᗙ 10:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. Not a major, national officer of a major party, and failed candidate. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to draft space.. Sandstein 09:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft computing

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

This is a confusing essay about an unclear and poorly-defined subject. It seems that many of the sources don't support the content, and I also had to remove several glaring copyright violations. It's written as a pedagogical essay, not an encyclopedia article, which makes it difficult to tell if the sources that it does have are all talking about the same thing or are using the term "soft computing" to describe related but different concepts, so that notability is sketchy at best. But even being generous, it's clear that the content is so awful that retaining it would impede writing an actual article on the subject. Reyk _YO! 09:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Reyk _YO! 09:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion is not cleanup. Subject is notable. It even has its own journals. It is taught as a subject on many Computer Science courses, e.g [2]. The page passes GNG despite genuine issues with the quality of the article. Article is not poor enough to merit WP:TNT, so should be kept. I think it is stub class though. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, I agree that it should be kept, but not the Main: namespace. It's had ~17-18 years to be cleaned up and, if cleanup isn't happening even with notional no deadlines, that reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. WP:ATT likely precludes deletion here, though there are likely some revision deletions from the prior copyright violations identified by Reyk that need to occur. People too often forget about draftification as outcome at AfD in that they think it passes WP:GNG, there's only a "keep" outcome. Frankly, I can't see how we should allow this article to be kept; it's had 17-18 years and cleanup isn't happening, which, as I say, reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Doug Mehus T·C 03:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am content with draftify as an outcome here, although this is by far not the worst page I have seen. I prefer keep, but draftify is a good option if it breaks a deadlock. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is related to Fuzzy logic, but different. It is well established; there is even an Applied Soft Computing journal [3]. Note the existence of this page on other languages. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. It's an interesting topic, but as written, this fails WP:GNG we can't just make vague pointers at a policy saying "deletion is not cleanup." Even though we notionally have no deadlines, if cleanup is not happening, that's highly problematic in that it reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. As a future library technician, I would not endorse this article in its current form. I don't endorse deletion, though, because it's an interesting topic. But, at present, it cannot exist in the Main: namespace that is indexed by Google. Doug Mehus T·C 02:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting Reyk's removal of copyright violations, if (and assuming it will) this article closes as draftify, closing administrator should suppress (hide) the earlier diffs containing the copyright violations (if not already done). Doug Mehus T·C 02:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify per above. Not bad enough for TNT. I don't think it fails GNG as is because GNG is based on the sources that exist and not those currently cited in the article. b uidhe 05:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel J. Campana

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

As far as I can tell, this fellow solidly fails WP:POLITICIAN as a small-town mayor. I don't see any coverage outside of Williamsport other than an apparently ugly custody battle with his ex-wife to satisfy WP:GNG Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Williamsport, though not a large city, is the largest town for about 70 miles in any direction and is a regional center. There is some coverage of him, like the nominator stated about the divorce, but also about a write-in campaign as well as an investigation, his re-election, some shootings:, a MLB game in a Little League city, the gas boom, his loss, etc. It's not surprising that most of the coverage is local, but there is some coverage from elsewhere in the state and country. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Redirect to List of mayors of Williamsport, Pennsylvania.IceFishing (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Editorofthewiki. It appears sufficient coverage exists for this subject to meet notability guidelines. The claim that he is only a minor politician is a subjective opinion not based on policy. — Hunter Kahn 19:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In fact, it is based on WP:POLITICIAN which is a Notability guideline. Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that says local politicians may still warrant an article of they recieve significant coverage and meet WP:GNG, so we should follow that. — Hunter Kahn 22:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Editorofthewiki. The town seems to have regional prominence which is acceptable under WP:POLOUTCOMES. Also, the subject does have significant coverage which could fall under WP:GNG.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Checkers, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". That's pretty much all the article says about him plus a bunch of trivia about parents, car, education. Right? Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I can find, and that others reference are in the local paper. As User:Toddst1 states, neither the career not the sources pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG.IceFishing (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too localized references. Williamsport is not a city so major that the mayor is default notable and the references do not add up to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for one more visit by our fair reviewers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mayor of a city of regional importance. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Struggling with this one - regional importance? Too many sources that are localized? Does the subject pass WP:POLITICIAN and/or WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No way Williamsport is a city of "regional importance," except insofar as there isn't much else in the region. Sure, its the county seat, every county has a seat. This one has ~ 29,000 people. I'll give Williamsport this: the Little League World Series. Beyond that it's just a country seat in a county with a lot of trees. And its mayor got coverage in the local paper. I really can see no indication of notability.IceFishing (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try then closing as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being local does not render a source non-independent or unreliable. I don't see anyone claiming that these publications are controlled by the mayor, that Williamsport lacks a free press, or that any of these publications are unreliable on Williamsport topics. Ergo, there doesn't appear to be any actual reason for deletion here; the GNG is met. That said, given that WP:N and the GNG, as actually written, are about how to structure content rather than whether to include it at all, it seems like it might be ideal to merge and redirect this article to Mayor of Williamsport (preferably with sections created for at least some of the other 38 mayors as well). But we don't need AfD for that. -- Visviva (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 09:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Film Quarterly

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

This doesn't appear to be notable. The only independent non user-edited source is the IndieWire piece, which is about the festival not the magazine. Guy (help!) 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - was discussed in 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. 2019 moved to new title see Talk:Independent_Film_Quarterly#Requested_move_3_February_2019. 260 links to the article [[4]]. Found this discussion because of w:no:Marius Hansen which has a Norwegian source [[5]] claiming "I 53 år har New York Festivals" (for 53 years) and that it was the Oscar of radio. The source is reliable, but the article is not about the festival and age of festival might have been taken for granted. Was the move from an article about a festival awarding prices to an article about a magazine a good idea? According to this version [[6]] the magazine was not the only organizer of the festival. From the article history a lot of sources seems to be added and removed over the years, but I have not checked the content of these sources. If 53 years is correct managing to stay afloat for that long indicates relevans due to age alone. Reliable sources is needed though. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 08:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to search the University libraries in Norway and get quite a few mentions for the film festival. Finding basis for the critisism mentioned in the article (Deussing, Ryan. "Fest and Loose." The Village Voice, Nov 04, 1997, pp. 88. ProQuest, https://search.proquest.com/docview/232203464?accountid=14699.) 1997 seems to be the first mention. Seems to be a lot of mentions in connection with someone getting an award. Is called "The largest Indie festival in the world" in this list of festivals: "Spotlight on Film Festivals: Film Festival Listing." Back Stage East, vol. 48, no. 31, 2007, pp. 24-25. ProQuest. Can't find a connection to the magazine. My library account gives access to a lot, but does not contain much newspapers. Seems if this should be kept it should be moved back to being an article about the film festival and the magazine should be written out of the article. Unless someone actually can find sources confirming that the magazine (and/or others) have anything to do with the festival. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 10:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry there was a bit too many lookalike festival names here. This was difficult to search for. w:no:Marius Hansen mentions New York Festivals International Radio Programming and Promotion Awards, but the source mentiones International Radio Programming & Promotion Awards in New York. Using the last name to search with I find the article "NY Radio Festival Prepares for Awards." Back Stage (Archive: 1960-2000), vol. 23, no. 52, Dec 24, 1982, pp. 41. ProQuest, which says: "The International Radio Festival of New York, the worldwide awards competition for radio advertising, progamming an promotion, ... The Radio Festival, which was inaugurated in 1982 as an outgrowth of the International Film & TV Festival of New York (now in its 26th year), ... ". This festival does not seem to have an article. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 11:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Hodgetts

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

Unremarkable person Dawnseeker2000 09:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 09:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full professor at NZ universities is a highly selective position, and his Google Scholar citation record shows five papers with over 100 citations each, enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me. He also has two books and an edited volume; I haven't had time yet to look but if they have multiple reviews it could make a case for WP:AUTHOR. Nomination does not provide any evidence that the nominator has paid any attention to our academic notability standards, let alone applying WP:BEFORE to determine whether the subject meets those standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:PROF#C1 is met, as argued above, and full professorship in NZ counts for a lot. In addition, he's quoted in the news often enough (e.g., [7][8]) that it would be in the public interest for us to document who he is. XOR'easter (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Dawnseeker2000 19:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) I contend that full professors in New Zealand meet criterion 5 of WP:PROF. Schwede 66 19:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India

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

Unsourced spam, probably non-notable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search of google revealed only one Non-Advertisement/Blog/self-published source and it was a 2 year old article that looked like a press release more than an actual news article. I agree it is Non-notable at this time.Nightenbelle (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are plenty of potential sources online, but I can't figure out if they're reliable or not. If everything is true it's a large business lobbying group. That doesn't get automatic inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - now you have a !vote. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaariyan (2008 film)

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

Unsourced film. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It might be unsourced but it starts a bunch of notable people. I'd be surprised if this failed GNG if someone knows the right sources. Missvain (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage of the film on internet. Movie is not notable as per WP:NFP. GargAvinash (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try. Close as No consensus if no new comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: While the article itself is unsourced, there are some sources online, including:

–http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/films/bollywood/2008/01/yaariyan_preview.shtml – a BBC review; this is the most substantial source I found

–Interesting bit of trivia: the producer was apparently arrested on drug charges: https://www.mid-day.com/articles/punjabi-film-producer-gets-arrested-in-drugs-case/18067194 – source: mid-day.com; don't know if it's reliable; the film is mentioned in the article.

–There are several other articles (including a source called Bollywood Hungama) that mention the movie as well as books on Bollywood/Punjabi films. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Harris

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

Fails WP:MUSICIAN. Any minute coverage she has received is due to her association with Lawrence Welk. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This Prabook.com page on Charlotte Perry Deveny might help find additional sources. StrayBolt (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding sources. Fails all notability tests.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the info regarding any of the Lawrence Welk orchestra members. Especially the only female member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100B:B116:CF22:540F:379:5F5E:8221 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Lacks significant coverage and being the only female member of Welk's band is not grounds for notability, even if it's true.Sandals1 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saintfield Baptist Church

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

No evidence of notability, all sources are non-independent. Not a historic building, just overly detailed OR about a small, generic house of worship. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The article provides a coherent history of a fairly recent church (founded 1986). It is undoubtedly OR, but that does not mean that it is false. Indeed I find the story quite credible. The question is whether this is a notable church; and I fear that it is not. For the moment tag it for notability and sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:NBUILD. I found no significant coverage, and the detailed history contained in the article, if true, provides reassurance that there is unlikely to be any reason for this church to be more notable that might be apparent from available sources.--Pontificalibus 19:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be just a non-notable local church. Most of the article is an unsourced narrative about how the church came to be founded, but nothing here indicates that the church became notable in later years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a notable church. Spleodrach (talk)
Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was disambiguate. Please fix (or unlink) the incoming links. BD2412 T 13:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information source

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

Is 'information source' an encyclopedic subject in light of WP:GNG and such? I couldn't find anything that defines it. There are some indication the term is used in information sciences in an abstract way, but I couldn't find any good definitions, and anyway, this different from what the article tries to do (which is to explain the use of this term in normal English, a laudable goal in general, but currently WP:OR in execution). At best, redirect to Guide to information sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it's just a dictdef. Unless sources are found which can give more information, I think it could be turned into a disambiguation page for primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, or deleted (no preference). b uidhe 14:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Information Source" is just a regular English noun phrase. An information source is a source of information. The two references on the page are to definitions of just the word "source", and tie this down to a... well a source - which is all very circular :) The page is against policy: WP:NOT#DICT. I cannot see how an encylopaedic article is possible here.
Delete as a WP:DICTDEF. It's just not a source of much information. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also redirect reliable source from here to WP:Reliable sources, if that doesn't violate some policy or guideline. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe this is an appropriate cross-namespace redirect: it could still work in mainspace, and if not, deletion is better than having a "trap door", as the concept of reliable sources is in no way exclusive to Wikipedia. ComplexRational (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as dab Term is too ill-defined to remain a regular article as it is now. Some items that might be listed on a disambiguation page with this name are Information source (mathematics), Information Sources in Law, Book and Informant. StonyBrook (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first entry is an appropriate dab entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Source text, as that article seems to most closely match the intended meaning and goes into detail about information. Alternatively, I would consider redirecting to Information source (mathematics) or even Source (disambiguation) as there are plausible explanations there; in any case, a primary topic should be established, with hatnotes leading to any other reasonable target(s) if a dab is not appropriate. ComplexRational (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your first 2 choices are both equally appropriate targets, which demonstrates why redirecting to either one of them to the exclusion of the other would be incorrect. Source (disambiguation) contains many non-information sources. StonyBrook (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should note then that we have a disambiguator for the mathematics article, so I believe that deletion would be inappropriate here. Now the question is, are both really equally apprporiate targets (in which case a dab as you suggest) or can a primary topic be determined? Additional opinions are welcome. ComplexRational (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The options that remain on the table are deleting, redirecting (but where to?) or to create a dab page. Can we get a clearer consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dab seems like the most helpful idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Edits by new editors, low-participation editors, and WP:SPA editors are discounted, as such editors are likely to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's criteria for determining notability. The remaining participants overwhelmingly favor deletion of the article, thereby rendering that outcome. BD2412 T 02:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davalenco

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

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

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

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

everything is sourced to press releases or otherwise primary sources aside from the Canadian award which doesn't appear to be notable. I would think that someone who qualified for such a high level sporting event would also have coverage but a search of newspaper archives gives nothing in terms of coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been updated with new references that prove the validity and notability of the subject with respect to the Canadian record being broken. Furthermore, there are Mexican newspaper articles that serve as secondary sources dating back to 1993-1997 that are not available online that have been listed under references. Alexlapaz (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you've still failed to add an independent reliable source.Praxidicae (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are various Spanish newspaper dating from 1993-1997 which are secondary sources which are not available online. Is there a place where they can be uploaded to? Furthermore, are the cited references such as newspapers that can be found online not reliable sources? As well as the articles from the Athletic Canada. Alexlapaz (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more reliable sources that were not included here before such as Mexican Independence Day in Canada and Alca Toronto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielkfc001 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC) — Gabrielkfc001 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page.creffett (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have an article. I was only able to find two sources, one a passing mention and one a feature, both which are already cited in the article. Missvain (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another online source (page 15) that was added to the article https://issuu.com/alexlapaz/docs/11january2020novedadesquintanaroo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlapaz (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two more sources that are not mentioned in the article which I will edit to add: ^[1] page 2 and ^[2] page 4. Countrychick56 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

The subject meets notable criteria WP:NTRACKI would expect other editors to look at the references, check them out and then decide. If I didn't think the subject was notable I would not have created the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlapaz (talk • contribs) 19:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article meets the notability criteria as detailed here WP:MUSIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing newspaper articles as recent as this morning talking about this artist^[3] Jlatos (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All these fake keeps are obvious, the subject is not notable. Please request for a sock puppet investigation on the accounts who are requesting to keep the article. Angus1986 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All these "keep"s are ... very questionable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Missvain, and I encourage the closing admin to take a look at the contribution history and account creation dates of most of the keep voters. creffett (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we can keep the article since the artist has verified Google panel and his own record label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulyora9920 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Google panel says absolutely nothing about notability, and "his own record label" in this case simply means that he self-publishes his own music. --Slashme (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need more input by established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it follows WP:GNG and criteria #1 for WP:SINGER because it has reliable sources. The creator of this article may or may not have sockpuppet accounts if the creator does the article should be deleted, according to the criteria for speedy deletion WP:G5. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, the sockpuppets are strong with this one! I've reviewed the sources in Spanish thoroughly and can safely say they're ALL promotional press releases. There is no coverage beyond these releases whatsoever. He does not fulfill any of the artist criteria either, e.g. charted in any national charts, that I could search for. Clear delete, and these socks need to be taken care of. PK650 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect PK650 the Sockpuppet investigation was closed as none of the accounts that want to keep the article are sockpuppets. Additionally I would like to apologize on your behalf to all the editors that you are insulting. It is such behaviour on Wikipedia that discourages younger editors to contribute but of course you do not care about that.Alexlapaz (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I found a few sources on Google such as this and it looks like the subject is notable, but I'm on the edge. The page is also missing these two links [9] and https://mexicanday.ca/lineup].In2020 (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: he seems to be non-notable as a musician, with no independent sources. You can find someone self-publishing music on every street corner nowadays. As a sportsman, he seems to be at best marginally notable, but his sporting achievements aren't even mentioned in the lede, which makes this article seem even more promotional. I guess the fact that there's no eswiki article about him is not relevant to a deletion discussion, but it still feels a bit strange that a Spanish-language artist first gets an article in enwiki. --Slashme (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paperity

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

Non-notable online database with no significant coverage to establish notability. GSS ^💬 02:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 02:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and develop. nearly 5 million papers in the database. I find there is reliable source coverage and the article should be developed. Lightburst (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: A subject must pass WP:N in order to have an article so, having 5 million papers in the database doesn't grant automatic notability. By the way which reliable source you are referring to? GSS ^💬 04:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added a source in French, but suspect is just a condensed version of a press release on its launch. Notability is not there yet, as not enough independent sources have written about it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely make IAR suggestions but I would lean keep on this just because it is potentially helpful to editors as an aggregator of accessible, reliable sources. b uidhe 23:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Helpful? this is not how we judge notability. As I said above a subject must pass WP:N in order to have an article so, can you please add a policy-based comment and explain how this meets our notability standard? GSS ^💬 03:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The right to invoke IAR is policy, per WP:IAR. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: WP:IAR does not give free license to put everything on Wikipedia. We have more guidelines, specifically, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:N, these are all CORE guidelines, anything not supported by RSs does not belong to Wikipedia. GSS ^💬 04:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. the IAR, a policy, derives from the fifth of our five pillars, which is as core as it gets. By contrast, notability, as described in WP:N, is a mere guideline and is rather peripheral. Which is not to say we should ignore notability, but if an editor wants to assert IAR in the service of improving WP, they have that right. Other editors will form thier own opinions of that assertion in the quest for consensus. But invoking IAR is a core right. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like IAR too, but in AFDs policy/guideline-based arguments almost always succeed over an IAR argument.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are blogs or routine announcements. Nothing additional came up with Google search. S0091 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Joan Smith Professor of Immunology

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

Notability is not WP:INHERITED merely because its two holders are bluelinks; non-independent sources are from within the department/university. Reywas92^Talk 04:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination is boilerplate, makes no reference to notability guidelines, and provides no evidence that the nominator has tried searching for sources as WP:BEFORE requests. Nevertheless my own searches turned up nothing in-depth and independent enough to contribute to a pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF, it is really necessary to spout "Does not meet GNG", "Can't find sources" in every nomination? Yes, I searched and did not find anything. No, I'm sorry I apparently did not search as hard as you did on the Bolivar one – thanks for the note about using "chair" instead. Now if only creators could before search for sources beyond those not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic when they create pages. Reywas92^Talk 08:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, as two or more people with enwiki articles have held this chair. ミラ P 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash, there is no free reign for automatic notability of separate articles for any concept for which you have two bluelinks. No part of LISTN states this utter fabrication. Which "independent reliable sources" "discuss [it] as a group or set"??? Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, WP:LISTN says, emphasis mine, that this is just [o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable, and that those that fulfill recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. And please take it to only one AFD at a time. ミラ P 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Two or more" bluelinks is not a navigational purpose superseding any expectation for independent sources covering the topic. You are twisting these words, which link to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Purposes_of_lists and clearly reduces the need for sources for pages like outlines and lists of lists, not for bestowing an article on any concept that people can theoretically use to move from one article to another. Forget the GNG and all the rest, right? It has two links, call it a list, and it's good – AFD or even ATD be excepted! We've got List of University of Cambridge people if you want navigation, or School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge#Notable academics if you want navigation, not independent-significant-coverage-free pages. Reywas92^Talk 23:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The chair is defining, and, altho it is new, and was formerly a perosnal chair , everyone there will always either have a wp article or be entitled to one. In practice, that makes a list worthwhile. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Who was Sheila Joan Smith? The first reference doesn't work for me (the archive link is to an error-message page), and the second is uninformative. I'm not convinced that a list of two people is actually useful for navigational purposes; we have those "previous / succeeded by" kind of templates for that. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Shelia Joan Smith? Given the name "Smith" , I was doubtful I'd find anything, until I tried Google, and: "The sum of US$650,000 received rom the American Friends of Cambridge, representing a benefaction from Dr Herchel Smith for the endowment of a Professorship in the field of medical studies, shall form a fund called the Shelia Joan Smith Profesorship fund." from p.669 of Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge 2004 [via Google books.] and, from the 2009 Statutes and Ordinances of the University of Cambridge, I see several endowed studentships, fellowships, and lectureships in the name of Hershel Smith ,and also an endowment for the Herchel Smith Laboratory of Medicinal Chemistry., . There's a bio of Herchel Smith at [10], He's clearly very notable, and in fact, see our articles Herchel Smith Laboratory for Medicinal Chemistry and Herchel Smith Professor of Pure Mathematics and , of course, Herschel Smith. from one of the refs there "Smith died on Dec. 20, 2001, at the age of 76. His wife, Sheila, predeceased him.... ." There's proof of the connection from [ http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2001-02/weekly/5889/4.html] "The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that he has accepted with gratitude a most generous bequest, expected to exceed more than £45m, under the Will of Dr Herchel Smith, M.A., Ph.D., Sc.D.(Hon.), Honorary Fellow of Emmanuel College, who died on 20 December 2001. During his lifetime Dr Smith made benefactions to the University currently valued at more than £15m in support of medicinal chemistry and intellectual property law, including funding for four Professorships, the Herchel Smith Laboratory of Medicinal Chemistry Fund, and the Sheila Joan Smith Research Fund. ..." I will add this to the article. Google and WP are co-dependent. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of Sheila Joan Smith Professors of Immunology: it's a named chair at one of the most well-known universities in the world, so its existence and membership is easily verifiable, but the topic itself doesn't seem to be the subject of in-depth coverage in any reliable source, so it can't be a normal encyclopedic article at this point. --Slashme (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G. I. Taylor Professor of Fluid Mechanics

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

Notability is not WP:INHERITED from some of its holders being bluelinks; non-independent sources are from within the department and don't provide substantive coverage. Reywas92^Talk 04:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found and added two sources to the article, one about Batchelor fund-raising for the endowment and another about Saffman turning down the chair. I think they may be a little too in-passing for WP:GNG, but others could reasonably disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a "Legacy" section in G. I. Taylor. There's a little more to say about the professorship than it existing, but not enough to warrant a dedicated article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, as two or more people with enwiki articles have held this chair. ミラ P 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash, there is no free reign for automatic notability of separate articles for any concept for which you have two bluelinks. No part of LISTN states this utter fabrication. Which "independent reliable sources" "discuss [it] as a group or set"??? Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Not necessary, WP:LISTN says, emphasis mine, that this is just [o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable, and that those that fulfill recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. And please take it to only one AFD at a time. ミラ P 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Two or more" bluelinks is not a navigational purpose superseding any expectation for independent sources covering the topic. You are twisting these words, which link to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Purposes_of_lists and clearly reduces the need for sources for pages like outlines and lists of lists, not for bestowing an article on any concept that people can theoretically use to move from one article to another. Forget the GNG and all the rest, right? It has two links, call it a list, and it's good – AFD or even ATD be excepted! We've got List of University of Cambridge people if you want navigation, or a list people affiliated with Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge or what have you. Reywas92^Talk 23:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a position that implies unquestioned notability for every holder. There will therefore be multiple articles, and that justifies a list. If some do not yet have blue links, that's just a reminder we need to write the articles.The concept of holding the chair is a distinguishing characteristic of the highest order, as possibly the greatest academic honour in this field in the world, considering the central role of Cambridge in devlelopment of applied mathematics and related subjects. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC) .[reply]
- If this is "the greatest academic honour in this field in the world" then where are the independent sources??? Cambridge has 250 named professorships, the thousands of universities in the world have tens of thousands of endowed chairs. Anything that touches these hallowed halls has WP:INHERITED notability then? The concept that these are automatically notable is preposterous. Reywas92^Talk 23:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may well be many endowed chairs around the world, any university could make up a name for a chair to big it up. However this one 3 out of four holders have an FRS and it was created by Batchelor the founding head of DAMPT, so among those created in to last few decades this one really has a claim to be notable. One would expect the history of a notable endowed chair to appear in news and historical sources and this one indeed does. Billlion (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per XOR'easter. I agree with the nominator that the arguments for notability as a list are unconvincing: what would be needed is not that the list contains notable objects, but that it is notable as a collection, and there is no evidence presented that this is the case. --JBL (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 01:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandringham High School

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

The subject of the article is not notable, the article contains no indication of notability, and the article has no references and has been tagged as unsourced since 2008. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have supported a delete (considering that it doesn't belong to any school district that I could potentially merge it to); however, this school has recently been the subject of financial struggles, an unusual decline in pass rates, and a corruption scandal. Presently, this article covers none of these issues, but I believe that if we can start from scratch, then I foresee that an article about this high school would not be too out of sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWarrior9919 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is notable, the references were embedded in the text. I have followed them and added two references. Zimsec is an easyway to judge notability. Care should be taken to differentiate it from the identically named school in joburg. ClemRutter (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a fan of keeping school articles, but this one does seem to meet GNG. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was under the impression that all secondary schools both in the United States of North America and the UK were ipso facto notable; why should this not apply to a Zimbabwean school?TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.TheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When high school articles first started getting written in 2003, they were typically US high schools that had press coverage, and notablity was never really in quesrion. Few thought about the fact that 17 years later people would be writing articles about high schools in Zimbabwe or India where even showing the schools exists using online sources could be a problem in some cases. But that's not an issue here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage, the RfC was very controversial with a forced consensus by committee that is opposed by many editors, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: seems to pass WP:GNG, especially in the light of sources raised in this AfD discussion. --Slashme (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability esablished.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The lack of reliable sources is a compelling argument, see WP:V. Sandstein 10:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pooh & the Inspirations

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

Two low-charting albums on a minor chart does not help the subject meet WP:GNG and certainly not WP:MUSICBIO. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I deprodded this article because the band had two albums chart fairly highly on the Billboard Top Gospel Albums chart in 2003 and 2004; this satisfies WP:MUSIC. I don't get the TOOSOON argument. Chubbles (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And so how did that help them to meet GNG? Charting is only a clue that, per WP:MUSICBIO, may make them notable. Too soon because they clearly don't have anyone other than you who cares to write about them. Once again, charting does no mean they are notable, only that they may be notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Entities that meet a subject-specific notability requirement do not also need to meet the GNG - if they did, the specific guidelines would be superfluous. Chubbles (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Entities that meet a subject-specific notability criteria may be notable. Every subject-specific notability criteria has been modified over the past few years to make that clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's no less true for the GNG; subjects that meet the GNG may also be judged not worthy of inclusion. But I see no good reason to exclude this particular group despite the fact that it meets WP:MUSIC's guidelines. Chubbles (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        How about, if we've found nothing to say about this group we don't need an article about them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they may have charted, but there is literally nothing out there about them. Searching their name and various other keywords yielded literally nothing even close to an RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard is an RS, and it's a concrete and independent indication of their success in the genre. This is, ultimately, why the SNGs exist - they indicate that a group has reached a threshold of importance for niche scenes and genres (especially those that do not have as robust presses as e.g. indie rock does), for older acts (whose Google hits aren't going to be as robust - how many gospel magazines' archives do we expect to be in Gnews?), and for areas where WP:SYSTEMIC issues persist. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "systemic". 2003 is recent enough that there should be at least somewhat of an internet footprint. Billboard's website verifies the chart positions, but it does not give biographical, extensive, third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all true. Black gospel is very poorly covered here in comparison to other genres, and a great deal of circa-2003 music literature has rotted right off the face of the internet; I can't tell you how many 404s I'm finding when I go back to look at music journalism of the mid-2000s. The band does not need to also meet WP:GNG to be notable if it meets an SNG; that would make the SNGs entirely moot. Chubbles (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs are not ironclad. They are not 100% foolproof. Logic should dictate that WP:GNG usurps SNG, not the other way around. You can't just stand here and say "but sources might possibly maybe exist somewhere, I'm not sure because they could have just 404'd" isn't enough. The WP:BURDEN is yours. Can you prove that there are sources instead of just guessing? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the difference between us here is a deeply philosophical one, and not one based in the facts of the case; this isn't the venue to hash that out. I'll just point out that this is a charting group (twice), and that this is verifiable and supported with reliable sources, such that it meets WP:MUSIC. That, on my reading, meets the threshold of notability, and so is a properly encyclopedic topic. Chubbles (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll point out that no one in the music industry cares enough about them to write about them, so neither should we. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, Billboard is not some "minor chart" per WP:CHART (be it in any genre). Clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO c.#2, and Billboard is a reliable source in itself; in fact, it is the gold standard. On another note, I have no idea why TOOSOON is quoted! Best, PK650 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You've characterized the point. Billboard hosts multiple charts. Billboard 200 and Billboard Hot 100 are major charts. With respect to "religious music", Christian Albums and Christian Songs are their equivalent. Top Gospel Albums is a minor chart. I would only expect the No. 1 entries to be notable, but this chart does not qualify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have never held that market- and genre-specific charts "don't count" for WP:MUSIC; they still demonstrate a wider popularity/prominence consistent with encyclopedic importance. Chubbles (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes we have. Many AfDs point-out that they are not the national chart but a minor chart. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then, I am not spending enough time at AfD. They are most certainly the national chart - they are published by Billboard! But again, I think this is really putting the cart before the horse - the whole point of these guidelines is to illustrate what it means to be notable. Billboard charts do that, including the market- and genre-specific charts. Even minor charts (e.g., a local or regional radio chart or iTunes charts) sometimes do that, though we have a general guideline that minor charts do not do so merely on their own. Nevertheless, they can be indicators of what the notability guideline is a means to and end for - of wider prominence or importance consistent with inclusion in an encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again, the guidelines are to suggest possibly criteria that may result in the subject being notable. They are not a coronation of notability. Notability only arrives when people take note of the subject. In this context, that means they are written about. If their charting does not get them press, they're not notable. And you do need to spend more time on the project as single-source chart are not minor, they're WP:BADCHARTS. A minor chart is one that is not one of the main charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Billboard genre charts are not WP:BADCHARTS, nor should they be. Woe to us if you had to reach the Hot 100 or the Top 200 album chart to even possibly be considered notable for charting! Chubbles (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No, iTunes, etc. are the BADCHARTS. The minor charts on Billboard are just minor charts. And yes, woe to any article were the only reason it is on the project is that it failed to reach one of the major charts and there's no other coverage of the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Semantic quibbling aside, this all strikes me as mistaking the rule for the reason, but I think I've shed well more than enough ink here for the time being. Chubbles (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Semantic quibbling aside, this all strikes me as mistaking the rule for the reason, as the reason that the rule exists is the assumption that charting will reveal something about the band in additional sources, and that clearly has not happened. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That...is exactly the opposite of the reason. As I said to another editor in this very discussion... It's clear that the difference between us here is a deeply philosophical one, and not one based in the facts of the case. By now, I'm sure it is abundantly clear to onlookers what your position is, and what is mine. Chubbles (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It is exactly the reason why the word "may" is italicized in the guideline. There are two editors who say you're missing the point. Sometime, you may realize that's the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The scales can't fall from my eyes soon enough. Chubbles (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten ridiculous. WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS does not discern such a chart hierarchy as seems to be implied by Walter Görlitz above. This is very clear. The fact is that they have charted in a Billboard chart. Let this be judged on its merits and policy by other participants, as there are clearly two views at question and nothing further can currently be argued. PK650 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't have references. There is so little interest in this article that no one can be bothered to even comment on this AfD.Dorama285 22:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Drivers

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

~~First off, most of the text is a word-for-word WP:COPYVIO of this copyrighted article.~~ Correction: This article came first. ~~Second,~~ the original Teter Hell Drivers may or may not be notable, but aggregating a bunch of tenuously related car shows because their names include "Hell Drivers" doesn't make any sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Teter looks like he deserves an article, so ~~I'm going to write one~~ I've created it. Then maybe this could be a redirect to that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and convert this into a redirect to Hell Drivers (film), with a hatnote to Lucky Teter. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Sinclair (martial artist)

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

A biography for a seemingly non-notable martial artist. The only sources being used in the article are from the website of the organization that he founded. Searching for additional sources only brought up similarly unreliable websites, and sales sites selling his products. I have found no coverage that would indicate that he passes the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 06:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for martial artists. All of the sources appear to be from the organization he founded, so there's no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing that shows he's notable as a martial artist and he lacks the coverage that the GNG requires.Sandals1 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megaputer Intelligence

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

Russian article was deleted. An unremarkable private company. It does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH Khinkali (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The sources in the stub right now are tied to the company or are PR. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 06:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article combining unsourced text about the company's origins with descriptions of their software product and related company events. The article includes some industry analyst vendor assessments, and there was a more recent Gartner "Magic Quadrant" appearance, but I don't see these or the brief listing section on this firm as a product provider in this book as sufficient to establish WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcius D. Raymond

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

Non-notable genealogist who worked for historical societies. He owned two newspapers. Note that I just removed some irrelevant information from the article so that people skimming the article wouldn't think he was a bicentennial man... much of it was about his ancestry. Also moved some things around for clarity. In terms of BEFORE, did some poking on Newspapers.com, Newspaper Archive, and Google Books, and found nothing relevant. That said, if someone finds more indication of notability, please let me know and I will withdraw the nomination. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep publisher of two newspapers. A gbooks search of: Raymond "Washington at Tarrytown" shows that the paper got some attention. Also, I can find newspaper mentions using his surname and a keyword, but mostly they discuss him with his initials rather than a first name. IceFishing (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a publisher of minor and often non-notable papers does not make one notable. No actual indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anárion

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

Appears to be a WP:GNG fail. I can find a paragraph in [11] comparing Isildur and Anárion to Romulus and Remus, but that's it in the way of analysis, rather than name-dropping. If someone has access to Mythlore archives, there might be something about Anárion in there, as that publication has produced some good Tolkien-related articles, but based on the sources I can find (the article is only primary-sourced and primary sources cannot prove notability) are not enough to demonstrate a WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any substantial discussions of this character. Also, I have access to Mythlore through the SWOSU Digital Commons. Unfortunately, Anárion is only briefly mentioned in a handful of articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks 3rd party sources, and when you have to source something to a note in a book we are going for minor impact primary sourcing. There are no secondary sources of note. He is not actually important to any of Tolkien's plots, and being important to Tolkien's plots is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article fails WP:GNG, being sourced entirely to primary sources, and the one source found is not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So minor that Tolkien Encyclopedia does not mention him in the index, only in passing in one sentence in another entry, where he is even spelled without the accent "Denethor has long sought knowledge throughthe palantir of Anarion". Utmost fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Jaystation controversy

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

WP:NOTNEWS Meatsgains^(talk) 02:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure where this belongs like a merge/redirect. But it does not merit an encyclopedia article. Not a good argument for AfD but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An incident with no lasting repercussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G7, see comment below. (Original justification: incident with no evidence of any lasting notability. As referenced above, no obvious target for a merge or redirect). Hug^syrup 10:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the comments below, I would argue for a speedy delete as G7. The only substantive edits have been made by the original editor, everything else has been nominating for deletion or doing automated cleanup. There is absolutely no reason to play the process out here at AFD. Hug^syrup 08:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jaystation has done a lot of stunts similar to this, there isn't any reason to keep it. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even the article creator tried to G7 speedy delete the page, which I assume was reverted because they did so incorrectly (they blanked a page which already had an active AfD notice). Just noting that the article creator appears to support deletion. This isn't notable and I doubt anyone will argue it is. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just delete my page already. From Florence Hansen (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Florence Hansen[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately that isn’t quite how this works. I’d ask you to read WP:OWNERSHIP, so you understand you do not "own" Wikipedia pages, even if you created them. It's looking very likely there will be consensus to delete this page, but you should not expect to create and delete pages at will. Once you create it a page here, it's not just "your" page anymore. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is absolutely WP:NOTNEWS, we have an article for neither of them, and the sources (including one with a direct link to the subject's YouTube page, which violates every basic journalistic standard) are junk. Nate • (chatter) 06:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] El Veracruzano David Valenzuela Viaja a Cuba para perfeccionar el Salto de Altura

[2] Esto de Veracruz 2 June 1997

[3] ttps://www.orangevilletoday.ca/2020/01/27/mexican-canadian-recording-artists-new-music-video-shot-in-orangeville

[1]

[2]

[3]