Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 April	18 April >

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. Michig (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parag Desai

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

Single reference cited in the article which does not throw any light on to the subject. The article doesn't qualify as per WP:GNG. - Hatchens (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been very strong consensus for a long time here that producers and marketers of films are run of the mill and thus not notable, unless there is an extraordinary amount of really good sources showing otherwise. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Even if you think this page should be kept, it needs to be blown up and started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure what I can add to the above arguments. He's simply not notable. He's been associated with prominent films, but as an individual he doesn't inherent those productions' notability. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buju (musician)

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

Non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & does not have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them hence falls short of general notability guidelines. A WP:BEFORE shows a gross lack of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article are either unreliable or not independent of the subject. Buju is a new act in the Nigerian music industry and has not done anything to warrant a separate article at this time. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musican.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. It appears he was only recently signed to a label, and that's all. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be a textbook case of WP:TOOSOON. The artist was just signed and hasn't done anything notable yet. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Catudal

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

Despite the abundance of “References” observed in the article, subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them hence does not satisfy WP:GNG. He is an author but also doesn’t satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 13:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional rubbish article. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn or Who's Who although some try to twist it to be one or the other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:MILL, WP:GNG, and WP:SPAM. Regardless of the wall of references, this is an ordinary job/wellness coach with a fancy title they gave themselves. This blatant spam might have been excused in 2007, but in 2020, everybody knows we are a charity, not LinkFACESpace. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The problem was with the article creator who has been blocked appropriately by an Admin. Now asides that, the article does indeed have at least 3 solid sources that substantiates notability of article’s subject (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Girls

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

The organization in itself does not possess WP:CORPDEPTH & falls short of WP:CORP as the organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Perharps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn By Nominator
Per rationale provide by my senior colleague @Cullen328. I would go ahead to speedy keep as I can’t see any opposing !vote.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the administrator who blocked the editor who wrote this article. I blocked for COI edits and a username indicating shared use. But the article already contains sufficient references to establish the notability of the publishing company, and the article is not written in an excessively promotional way. The article should be kept and the nominator (or any other editor) should edit the article to improve its neutrality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of references including a good article from The Guardian as an independent reliable source.Hughesdarren (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing is adequate enough to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda iLham Barto

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

WP:AUTHOR. Requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show notability : The first source is just a listing/mention; the second is own website so not independent; The third is a book listing, so the section about the author is unlikely to be independent; The forth is the subjects own answers so again not independent. (note: submission was declined by User:KylieTastic. but it was move to main namespace by author. nothing changed in the meantime). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search for significant coverage comes up with nothing meaningful. I don't find any evidence that the article meets WP:AUTHOR or basic notability threshold requiring in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Glendoremus (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and looks largely self-written/self-promotion. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there is no claim to notability in the article, and I can't find any secondary sources that do more than mention her, so WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO are not met. --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:MILPERSON.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Less Unless (talk • contribs) 13:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created regarding Author Linda iLham Barto was not properly cited when first created.The person is well known by her books memories of ha hillybilly muslim. Her writings are published in various muslims magazines in USA. She is also a painter, matarial art instructer, Art teacher and US Air Force veteran. She is recognized by National Association of Professional Women. Her two books are earlier mentioned in bibliography of books defending Islam.I think this person is notable for wikipedia. There is some lack of informations about her personal life in web, i collected those informations from her book and a interview fron a website cited them now from idependent source. This article is now improved than when created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakibim (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a look at the sources present in the article right now.

Source assessment

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

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/_generate/MUSLIM.html	Listing at upenn.edu		only a link to Barto's own website	✘ No
http://www.youngmuslimdigest.com/perspective/02/2014/veterans-day-2013/	written by Barto		?	✘ No
https://aboutislam.net/author/linda-barto/	? author listing		listing of her name, a few words on her occupation, and a link to her website	✘ No
https://www.amazon.com/Linda-iLham.-Barto/e/B002RFAG28%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share	amazon.com	?	value not understood commercial link to where her books are sold	✘ No
https://ncwriters.org/index.php/our-members/hats-off/1009-hats-off-to-linda-ilham-barto	NC Writers' network announcement of a "Woman of the year" award		Two sentences, one of which is a link to Barto's website	✘ No
https://www.hickoryrecord.com/news/column-fear-should-not-shake-our-values/article_e7186a3b-5dce-5d4b-8beb-d07058c13310.html	Unavailable in the EU so I can't see it, but the link description in the article says that it is a column written by Barto	? as above		✘ No
http://www.muslimamerican.com/dreaming-way-islam/	text written by Barto	? possibly but no point in evaluating that		✘ No
https://books.google.com/books/about/Memoirs_of_a_Hillbilly_Muslim.html?id=QTwrYAAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description	Google Books link	?		✘ No
http://en.alukah.net/World_Muslims/12/730/	Interview with Barto			✘ No
Reference to one of Barto's books				✘ No
https://books.google.com.bd/books/about/Where_the_Ghost_Camel_Grins.html?id=ggFkPgAACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y	Google Books link	?		✘ No
https://books.google.com.bd/books/about/Ramadan_Rhapsody.html?id=gidrPgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y https://www.noorart.com/Ramadan-Rhapsody-A-Daily-Celebration	Google Books link	?		✘ No
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Bible_and_the_Qur_an_at_the_Edge_of.html?id=GYyaIuVu54gC&source=kp_book_description	Google Books link	?		✘ No
http://www.lit-by-linda.com/about_the_author.html	Author's own website			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I stopped trying to evaluate reliability after a while, because it doesn't matter if a source is reliable when it is not independent... (I guess GBooks can be considered reliable, but a GBooks listing only shows that the book exists, not that it is notable, and the listing is not an independent source.) According to this analysis, GNG is not met even with the newly added sources. --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I can assist? The 6th source on the assessment list (Hickory Record), is the website of a local newspaper. The column is an opinion piece written by John LaFontaine. It has nothing to do with Barto whatsoever, except that she made a public comment in the comments section. I don't want to violate AGF, but it seems to me that the sourcing editor cast a wide net over a Google search for Barto, and just inserted anything that came up. Ditch ∝ 17:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My original opinion, Delete, still holds. I've reviewed the additional references added recently and there is nothing that changes my mind. Thanks to bonadea for going above and beyond to analyze the references. Glendoremus (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mildly interesting, but we are not a free web-host for those selling autobiographies. Thank you very much Bonadea for your analysis of the poor sourcing. That saved me from wasting 25 minutes of my life. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source assessment above. Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5, WP:PAIDLIST#Get Wikified). MER-C 09:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Seal Company

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

This is just marketing for the company and nothing significant or really reliable/independent about the sources NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 09:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Undisclosed paid editing: See Special:Diff/951716567 at User talk:Odelawar. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By a banned paid editing company (WP:PAIDLIST#Get Wikified). Deleted. MER-C 09:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)#Special editions. Consensus is against having a stand-alone article on this. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show, season 21)

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

Overwhelming precedent that episode lists of game shows do not meet guidelines for inclusion. Article is list of a special one-time event episodes of a game show. While Who Wants to Be a Millionaire is a widely notable television show and part of pop culture, a list of episodes featuring celebrity contestants does not meet WP:N, nor does it meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE (specifically, "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.")

AldezD (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article isn't just a list of episodes as the nom has erroneously suggested and in fact shows a good amount of depth and promise for expansion. From what I understand, this is a new format, new host, will have wikinotable contestants and will be on primetime for the first time in seventeen seasons. A standalone article makes sense and is completely warranted. This is further supported by the Variety article which alone gives it enough standalone notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Eight celebrity editions of a game show do not meet inclusion per the WP guidelines above and the precedent set for other lists of game show episodes. Production details of 2020 episodes should be included in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)#Broadcast history and/or Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)#Special editions, including notable contestants. These production details do not meet WP:N/WP:EPISODE for a separate article of eight special episodes to exist. If this were true, there would be a separate article for every other season of this show—again, which does not meet WP guidelines. The Variety source linked in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show, season 21) does not give standalone notability for this WP article to be kept because it does not discuss specifically single episodes. It should be included as a source in the Broadcast history section of the main article. AldezD (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  AldezD, It doesn't need to discuss specific episodes, as the subject is covering the entire season. The Variety article deals directly with this specific season giving it plenty of coverage with depth. You are right that there shouldn't be articles for each of the other seasons, because none of them afaik demonstrated independent WP:SIGCOV. This does. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Sulfurboy This is why it should be mentioned in Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire_(American_game_show)#Special_editions, not as a stand-alone article. AldezD (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire_(American_game_show)#Special_editions. Limited-run celebrity special, which ABC is even calling season 1; "Season 21" is original research. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see a single reason why one season out of 21 is deserving of its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the new format points and any notable performances can be discussed in the main page as argued above. Including every celebrity’s individual performance in this season would set a dangerous precedent for other game shows with celebrity editions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 21:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Masood

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

Promotional, LinkedIn profile, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not-notable. Website for the company doesn't even work, but even if it did, this is entirely self-promotion. erc ^{talk/contribs} 21:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by GPL93, Wikipedia is not & would never be another WP:LINKEDIN. Celestina007 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Khawaja

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

Promotional article. Delete per WP:TNT, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article relies on four sources, but notability isn't established at any point. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TNT. Was this written by someone on drugs or a machine translation project? There's not even a semblance of any allegation of notability, and it's endlessly worded nothingness. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I could not find any sources to show that the general notability guideline has been met, even with a thorough search online. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted, and redirected to Codes of conduct, to take advantage of an ongoing buy-one-get-one-free sale on redirects. BD2412 T 04:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Codes of Conduct

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

Non-notable "proposed" television miniseries. A pilot was shot, but the series was ultimately not picked up. All references are reworded press releases, not independent of the subject, reporting verbatim casting news and/or character descriptions. Thousands of unaired pilots exist and do not merit standalone articles- this particular one lacks any real significant coverage needed to establish long-term notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every never created project is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Book of Records

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

This "book" is in no way affiliated with the Guinness world records. Based on its own site, it, "India book of records", and its other children companies by a man named Biswaroop Roy Choudhary. The lack of reliable articles supporting it, and the dubious names like "World records university" being affiliated to it (taken from its site )further show its non-notability. Daiyusha (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been ah, questionable edits on this page. Non-notable, even says it's fake. This article most definitely should be deleted. I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted already. TuorEladar (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:MADEUP, or in the alternative, WP:MILL and WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notice how none of the references (including the "references" added here) actually cover the subject? These are all brief newspaper reports on records/record attempts that are claimed to be for the ABoR. I don't think we can claim it is fake – the website clearly exists – but there is zero notability. Anyone can register a website and build a data base of anything they like. That doesn't make the data base notable. --bonadea contributions talk 14:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the "affiliated" India Book of Records in another AfD discussion, just FTR. I don't think their notability it necessarily completely connected, so it's better to have separate discussions (even though I obviously think they are equally non-notable). --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't add up. This company and a bunch of other are all connected to an organization named "World Records University". The URL for the .com redirects to the .co.uk page which is boldly emblazoned with "Registered Under Govt.of United Kingdom. Registration No. 284666862". A search in the UK companies office yields no trace (although there are a number of similar sounding companies). This looks to be WP:MADEUP to me. In any case, nothing I can find indicates it meets the criteria for notability, fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus no notability is shown Nosebagbear (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Cyprus

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a tiny media organization in a small island-state (Cyprus). I couldn't spot any third reliable sources discussing this online newspaper (not surprisingly). Somehow surprising, it was this sentence at About Us: "Founded in 2020 by Malik Nomi, Daily Cyprus has come a long way from its beginnings in Limassol, Cyprus" [1]. The user that created the article is NomiWrites. Cinadon36 18:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Cinadon36 18:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party coverage whatsoever, clearly fails WP:GNG Zoozaz1. (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. A rather lame attempt at publicity. -The Gnome (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that there isn't suitable for sourcing for this, once the same-name subject is factored out. FOLLOW-UP: Backlinks have not be processed due to the some cross-linking with YoYo's making it non-viable to remove them through the comparatively blunt backlink remover Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GameMaker

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

An unnotable piece of software failing WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The only sources currently in the article are the software's own website, an interview with an unconnected individual, and a download proxy site. A WP:BEFORE turns up no results in Google Scholar or WP Video games' custom search engines, as well as no reliable sources through a regular Google search. GameMaker has been discontinued nine years ago, wherefore it is doubtful that there will be any new sources soon. When looking for sources, note that there is another software by that name that is still active and, from a quick glance, notable. IceWelder [✉] 18:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 18:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 18:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 18:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom - at first I thought this was the game engine by YoYo Games and was about to write a "strong keep" post, but yeah, this unrelated software just does not seem to be covered in any RSs and does not meet WP:GNG.--Alexandra^IDV 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE I feel the exact same way as the Alexandra, saw it and felt the same way then realized it was a different bit of software. No signs of notability. Dream Focus 06:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus NCORP not met Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AMS Airlines

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

The airline seems to only have 6 planes, all the sources in the article are trivial, and nothing but trivial coverage for them comes up in a Google search. So they fail WP:NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This airline does fail WP:NCORP because it does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. In addition, with both Google and Bing searches, nothing of note comes up. Therefore it should be deleted. Stickymatch 23:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very run-of-the-mill airline that lacks notability.TH1980 (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in its current form may not be in the best shape, but we normally maintain articles for airlines and should do the same for this one. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Epluribusunumyall See here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The company simply isn't notable. The above arguments make perfect sense. I'm not sure what to say other than that. Deletion is absolutely the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus notability not met. If someone finds some turkish sources that actually are reliable and in-depth, by all means contact me Nosebagbear (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adana Çimento

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

Cement company that fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG notability standards. It hasn't had any sources in the article since it was created and nothing to establish notability comes up for it in a Google search. Even the Turkish language article only sights a few sources that don't seem to cut it. Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I am !voting to Delete because I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, there may be references in the Turkish language that my searching skills are failing to locate. I'll keep an eye here in case good references appear but in the meantime, topic seems to fail GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. It's a cement/concrete company. Unless it's involved in literally burying bodies or killing people by negligence, such companies are never notable, period. If it is involved in such crimes then put up. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that there are insufficient sources that meet all of reliable, independent (particularly), secondary and significant coverage about the company itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kano (company)

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

I've speeded this article twice in the past as G11 and G5, but the new version was created by a good-faith editor. Anyhow: referenciness is provided in the form of a handful of news stories that are based on press releases. It is not the spam it once was, but I do suspect it's a solicited contribution abusing the good faith of a decent editor outside what seem to be his normal areas of interest, I don't think it establishes WP:GNG and it certainly fails WP:CORP. Guy (help!) 17:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has garnered feature-level coverage in an array of reliable sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Jweiss11, can you provide links to references that meet the criteria for establishing notability please? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - HighKing, I think the five sources already referenced in the article go along away toward establishing notability. Some quick searches turn up more: [2], [3], [4] Jweiss11 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article seem to press releases and the ones provided in the AfD are about product releases and other trivial topics that fail WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 17:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find a single source meets the criteria for establishing the notability *of the company*. The references are based on company announcements and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This from USA Today, this from CNBC and this from The Times are simply generic company-profile PR pieces. There is no Independent Content whatsoever, all of the information in the article concerning this company is provided by company executives (quotations/interviews) or the company themselves (number of units shipped, funding amounts raised, number of apps, etc). Fails WP:ORGIND
- This from The Telegraph and this from Tech Crunch are entirely based on company announcements - one talks about the launch one of the company's products and the other talks about their announcement of upcoming layoffs. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from VentureBeat is one of many articles in different publications all based on the joint announcement and dated from June 19/20 2019. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from The Guardian and this from The Telegraph barely mentions the company but primarily information on the product which isn't the subject of this article, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND

While lots of articles mentioning Kano can be found, they invariably are based entirely on information provided by the company or are reviews of one of their products. Topic fails GNG/NNCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Charles Archibald Nicholson. The content can always be broken out into an article again if new reliable sources are found separately establishing notability. BD2412 T 04:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Louise Nicholson

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

I don't see any elements of notability except possibly the book. But the book was only published from manuscript in 2006 at Project Gutenberg, and is not listed in WorldCat or British Library, though it is in the Australian National Library Catalog. I see no mention anywhere of her drawings.

Some of the material in this article is copied from the notes in the project Gutenberg posting, which is CC-noncommercial and therefore not a conforming license for WP, DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless I am missing something, her only artistic output was Diary of a trip to Australia, 1897. No shows, no collections, nothing else. The diary was also not published in her lifetime, but rather donated as a historical object. GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should this perhaps be listed in an Australia-related deletion discussion list? There are some passionate Australian Wikipedians who may uncover more info about the subject. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article. Perhaps it does not do justice to Nicholson. She wrote a very readable and interesting diary about her return trip to Australia and also did many watercolour paintings along the way. I imagine that she never intended her diary to be published. It was a personal record. She was married to an eminent architect, and related to important people which I believe is a matter of interest to people. Goodness me, women need more representation at Wikipedia. don't they? Do what you will with the article but it escapes me why it needs to be deleted. Collywolly (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable women need more representation on Wikipedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her more well-known family members don't help her case. Not her husband, not her brother, not her nephew. See WP:BIOFAMILY DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I am typically loathe to suggest this, but this time I think perhaps an adapt and merge to her husband's article is in order. I've not found enough coverage to suggest a keep or the creation of an article on the diary. She is the author of a book of interest to some, however recently published, and I could see people seeking out more about her; the bulk of this information could be preserved. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the ebook at Gutenberg states, Nicholson "made many watercolour sketches of the scenery along the way, including seascapes, landscapes and buildings." She did not just write a diary. Further, why would we want to merge it into her husband's story. Let us let her have her own light! Collywolly (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collywolly, what is your policy-based argument? We don't keep articles on people because they did run of the mill things. There is no coverage of any notable activity here other than writing a single book. The sketches do not appear in any museum collection and were not the subject of any other exhibition or review. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, Collywolly. Yes, women are underrepresented. No, giving one an article because she wrote a diary that was self-published and received no critical attention decades after her death is not the way to address it. As to merging, a large part of the article is about her husband, which says he contributed to the illustrations, so it is relevant to his article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge as per the above. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Amra Bangali. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalistan

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

Non-notable movement, fails WP:GNG. Looks like someone trying to push political agenda/demands on wikipedia. Political demand should be written on their article if needed, not on separate article. Article contain original research, primary sources & non related sources. for example, ref no 1 isn't a WP:RS, ref no 2 is about a protest of NRC & contain a passing mention of Bangalistan, ref no 3 & 4 are primary, and ref 5, 6, & 7 aren't related to the subject of article. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Amra Bangali, the "only" party that is spearheading this demand. I dont think it is independently notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান do you agree with my merge suggestion ? Cedix (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection for merge. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amra Bangali. Fails GEOLAND criteria as of now and it is more like ideological concept of one fringe party in Bengal of India.-- Brihaspati (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Amra Bangali, per Cedix. No independent notability. The target article will need some clean-up too. Abecedare (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. What a mess of a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Amra_Bangali#Demands. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those arguing to keep the article have not demonstrated how the sources satisfy WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLK Super Speciality Hospital

AfDs for this article:

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

This is essentially an advertisement; the list of notable cases is the sort of material that might possibly be appropriate for their own web site, but not for an encyclopedia .The references are essentially PR,with a few notices. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination, clearly promotional language and as per WP:PROMO Zoozaz1 (talk)20:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed quite promotional, but that is not the question. Its a very substantial tertiary hospital and it would very surprising if it did not prove to be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based off of reliable, independent sources as detailed in WP:GNG, and so far the article only has sources that talk about different surgeries performed, most of which are just copies of press releases, and according to WP:GNG press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, in doing a google search there isn't any significant coverage of the hospital that is reliable and independent. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has proven very difficult to find good sources for hospitals, in any country; I've tried for many articles and rarely succeeded. Probably the best approach is what we do with non-individually notable schools--most hospitals are now part of a chain or company or network or religious group or government department, and we can make combination articles for the larger units, listing the individual ones. I've been doing it for some US chains. (And I suspect the situation will be considerably different after the publicity hospitals are deservedly getting because of COVID. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with the approach that we should treat hospitals as we have done with non-notable schools. using this analogy. i think we should look at hospitals more as universities, whereas health clinics can serve the role as non-notable elementary schools. therefore, we list most (if not all) universities on wikipedia we should probably do the same with hospital establishments. we shouldn't always be too strick on applying notability guidelines. this all being my personal wikipedia opinion and completely up for debate in good time. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere congratulations on being completely honest and forthcoming about your beliefs on Wikipedia, in the sense that you are a hard-core inclusionist and quite indiferrent about policies & guidelines, as you make clear in your page. So many editors hide this stance behind an elaborate game of insouciance. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cheers mate, happy to discuss it further on my talk page if you want. just to clarify on WikiProject: Hospitals guidelines, that like while not all hospitals are notable the majority of them (including this one) meets the criteria set. the analogy up there is of course my personal opinion. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the hospital seems to be at very least somewhat notable due to some of the precedures it performed as being groundbreaking for healthcare services in India. def the language used is too promotional, but that can be fixed and we don't need to remove the article. also in terms of finding other sources, could be a language barrier between what is being reporter and looked at in creating the article. all of which can be improved upon and doesn't require us to delete a good stub of an article. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy and guidelines that could allow in Wikipedia a text, such as this one, that is not adequately supported by reliable sources as to its subject's notability. This is quite simply a promotional piece, and the fact that it was created by a kamikaze account never helps. -The Gnome (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question is not how good the article is, but whether independent sources exist. There is clearly plenty of coverage in the Indian press - the Hindu, Deccan Herald, India Times, India Today .... and that is just on how it's coping with Corona Virus. It's existed, and been prominent for 60 years. Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems to have passed WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources (already on the article) plus per User:Rathfelder. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources. The forensics are not too difficult. We have:

The typical listing in the Ministry of Health website (here);
References to the hospital's own website (here, and here, and even archived self-promo material here), to the mother company's corporate website (here), and to the professional association of private hospitals (here);
An irrelevant article on adaptive radiotherapy, and an equally irrelevant report in a non-scientific, obscure website on a heart-transplant patient's recovery, praising a doctor ("invented the most advanced technique of weaning off artificial heart support", etc)
Listings in medical tourism websites such as this or this;
Lots of blatant advertorials or hyper-excited puffery that belongs in a brochure, e.g. in a business website ("The first & most advanced for efficient Cancer Treatment"), in CrediHealth ("there has been no looking back for this hospital"), in NDTV ("Nigerian conjoined twins"), etc;
And a few dead links (e.g. here and here)

As the nominator put it, all this perhaps makes for a truly great brochure. But for a Wikipedia article? -The Gnome (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it intended as Directory Services or Yellow Pages. The reasons provided to Keep this article are not based on correct interpretation of policy/guidelines. An "independent source" does *not* mean simply that the publisher has no commercial ties with the company but means that the *content* must be independent and this is explained in ORDIND. Due to the distinct lack of sources with independent content, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. If there are higher quality sources that properly discuss the subject, add them there. Also, all of the footnotes need to be something other than just a link and title, with no indication of the source. BD2412 T 04:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Suleman Habib

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. No in-depth coverage/biography found. Also, no coverage found of his career when he was alive. This, this, this, and this are produced by web desk (and thus are of low quality). Also, the person seems to be a case of WP:INHERITED as he is scion of Habib family. Störm (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say keep as creator of the bio. Pakistani RS noted him as one of Pakistan's most prominent businessmen and he was the chairman of Pakistan's biggest car manufacturer company. --Saqib (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that many major news outlets in Pakistan are carrying obituaries of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news coverage in major newspapers of Pakistan exists for the subject. In fact, there is already sufficient news coverage included in the existing references at the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. — Hammad (Talk!) 16:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger; if he wasn't notable, his death would not have been as widely covered in the sources that are present. One of the links in Phil's search shows the Prime Minister also offered his condolences, which would suggest he was more than an ordinary figure (in terms of notability). Mar4d (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thycotic

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. No claim to notability. Previously deleted (December 2018). The article has a different set of references, but still no in-depth coverage by reliable, independent, secondary sources. Paid contributor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my assessment of the sources:

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Bloomberg	N	Y	Y	N	N	Company listing stating address and names of officers and board members
Crunchbase	N	Y	Y	N	N	Listing with funding rounds, acquisitions
Delaware Lookup	N	Y	Y	N	N	Listing
Insight Partners	Y	N	Y	N	N	Press release issued by the company; Insight Partners are investors in Thycotic
Wall Street Journal	Y	N	Y	N	N	Press release issued by the company
Bloomberg	N	Y	Y	N	N	Listing re CEO
Insight Partners #2	Y	N	Y	N	N	Press release issued by the company; Insight Partners are investors in Thycotic
KuppingerCole	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Industry analyst regurgitating press release but with one or two paragraphs of commentary, not so much about the company but on whether the acquisition indicates a trend
betanews	Y	N	Y	N	N	Based on press release
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Article fails to establish why it is notable, nor can I find any sources that can verify its notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Curb Safe Charmer's detailed matrix of the sources provided here and in the first AfD demonstrate a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Attempts to find better sources have failed and this can safely be said to fail both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:MILL, NCORP, and GNG. Thank you Curb Safe Charmer for your excellent analysis of the sources. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I want to stress that it was supposed to be deleted a year and a half ago, and there's been zero improvement. I suggest a WP:SALT by the closing admin. Spam articles that are re-created are subject to salting. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 04:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triple The Mogul

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

promotional piece for a non notable rapper who falls short of WP:SINGER & WP:GNG. He is allegedly a businessman but per WP:ANYBIO & WP:BASIC he doesn’t still qualify. Celestina007 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Added more information and context on his rap career which was posted on complex magaznine, which is a notable and reliable source, therefore having 2 notable sources and 2 distinct events. https://www.complex.com/pigeons-and-planes/2013/06/bernie-madoffs-nephew-is-an-aspiring-rapper "In March 2013, Triple The Mogul released his first Mixtape "Madoff Monopoly" which featured his song "Bernie Madoff Familia", a remix to Rick Ross' song B.M.F. [1] [2] Rapper Shyne tweeted about the video. [3] In July 2013 he released his second mixtape "Rich Off My Yichus" which fetaured his song "Hasaybah"

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. Caro7200 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Pure promo. Not notable. pburka (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry for sending emails. i have added a section about "Bernie Madoff Nephew Controversy" which i beleive will make the article more notable. Many major media publications and sources like NYmag, gawker, buzzfeed etc. please reconsider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylevy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the better sources, it was a minor publicity stunt that is not noteworthy. The content in the article did not properly summarize the material in the better sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also included this line and source to increase notaility "He then released a music video for his song "Gold Kippah" which has over 1 Million views on the popular website Worldstar HipHop" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylevy (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody is writing about him in WP:SECONDARY sources, not in any significant depth. The number of views of his one video is not conclusive: it could be manipulated. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added more notable information such as verified instagram account and affiliation with Don Q "His instagram page has over 280,000 followers and he works with rappers Trill Sammy and Don Q ^[1] ^[2]"

ballin4ever3 (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)*[reply]

References

See WP:NUMFRIENDS. It doesn't matter how many famous friends or followers he has. Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources. From the sources provided, if he's notable at all, it's only for WP:ONEEVENT. pburka (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't consider the A) 1 Million views on "Gold Kippah" and B) Bernie Madoff nephew controversy as 2 notable events with significant coverage from reliable sources? Gold Kippah was on Worldstar Hip Hop which Alexa ranked the site 235th in site traffic in the United States, and other blogs like Hip Hop Vibe and Bang It Out. The Bernie Madoff nephew controversy was obviously covered on reliable sources like Buzzfeed, NY Mag, and Gawker. I think that should qualify. ballin4ever3 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that reliable sources (e.g. newspapers or magazines) wrote about his video getting a million views. pburka (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is evidence from Bang It Out which is a Jewish magazine https://www.bangitout.com/behold-yeshiva-gangsta-rap/ the 1 million views are real and conclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylevy (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't actually talk about the number of views. In fact, it's all of about 3 sentences. That's not significant coverage. I strongly encourage you to carefully read the following pages: WP:GNG and WP:COI. Your achievements don't make you notable on Wikipedia. The only thing that counts is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. pburka (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that a video viewed a million times would generate some comment in WP:SECONDARY sources, but when I searched for "Gold Kippah" I found six pages of gold-threaded or gold-colored Jewish skull caps. It wasn't until the seventh page that this webpage showed up in the search results. And take a look at the comments; nobody can believe the number of views because the video is so bad. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Added more information and context on his rap career which was posted on complex magaznine, which is a notable and reliable source, therefore having 2 notable sources and 2 distinct events. https://www.complex.com/pigeons-and-planes/2013/06/bernie-madoffs-nephew-is-an-aspiring-rapper "In March 2013, Triple The Mogul released his first Mixtape "Madoff Monopoly" which featured his song "Bernie Madoff Familia", a remix to Rick Ross' song B.M.F. [1] [2] Rapper Shyne tweeted about the video. [3] In July 2013 he released his second mixtape "Rich Off My Yichus" which fetaured his song "Hasaybah"[4]. "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylevy (talk • contribs)

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the references cited in the article are unreliable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i believe HipHop Vibe to be a credible source https://www.hip-hopvibe.com/2016/01/16/hhv-on-the-rise-video-of-the-week-triple-ft-joey-madoff-gold-kippah/ Also articles like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlay_Starr do not have any newspapers or magazines as sources and are still deemed reliable enough for a wikpedia article. Would you guys consider Respect Magazine a notable and reliable source? becuase he has old articles on that wesbite, it is a magazine and therefore should be considered a reliable source. I Added more information and context on his rap career which was posted on complex magaznine, which is a notable and reliable source, therefore having 2 notable sources and 2 distinct events. https://www.complex.com/pigeons-and-planes/2013/06/bernie-madoffs-nephew-is-an-aspiring-rapper "In March 2013, Triple The Mogul released his first Mixtape "Madoff Monopoly" which featured his song "Bernie Madoff Familia", a remix to Rick Ross' song B.M.F. [1] [2] Rapper Shyne tweeted about the video. [3] In July 2013 he released his second mixtape "Rich Off My Yichus" which fetaured his song "Hasaybah"[4]. "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylevy (talk • contribs)

Comment To be fair, we give rappers a very hard time on Wikipedia. The sources aren't bad, but the article does need a lot of cleanup. Abstaining for now. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 11:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest – speedonthebeat interview

Here is an interview which has a lot more information directly from the subject. I do not know if the source would be considered reliable but perhaps you can include and clean up the article. https://speedonthebeat.com/2013/07/09/an-interview-with-triple-a-k-a-stuart-madoff-bernies-rapping-nephew/ ballin4ever3 (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That interview proves to me that you have a conflict of interest with regard to Triple the rapper. You shouldn't be trying to promote him so hard on Wikipedia.

Note that interviews are not usually accepted sources to prove notability. The problem with interviews is that most of the material comes from the person being interviewed, so it isn't exactly a WP:SECONDARY source. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the interview in no way proves that I have a conflict of interest here, I just thought it would be relevant to include it in the discussion. I appreciate your clarification about interviews being unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylevy (talk • contribs)

The interview says that Triple's real name is Yaakov Levy, and that the supposed family connection to Bernie Madoff is fabricated, that Stu Madoff is a "character". Anybody with the username Ylevy working so hard to promote this topic will be assumed to have a conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because i don't wanna upset you, i wanna ask if this photo would be better suited for Wikipedia. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/27/03/3FA4A8A400000578-4450060-image-a-63_1493260562847.jpg it is similar to the photo that you flagged for deletion but has no copyright tag of "Hollywood Fix" ballin4ever3 (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on Binksternet (talk) insight/investigation above. Not a good faith use of wikipedia, but promotional. If a different editor were to recreate this page for this person it would perhaps lead to a more objective AfD, but I doubt it would hold up based on the weakness of the sources. All of them are promotional in nature be it through social media or insignificant coverage, not one is reflective of an accomplishment that would make this subject notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if the article was rewritten with media coverage from a magazaine (lets say Respect Magazine) about him giving Mac Miller his Kippah to use on Wild N Out (watch this YouTube Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCKTOzPEeB8) the video cuts to show him at 1 minute in, and the video has 5 million views. Would you consider that a significant accomplishment or at least a part of one? ballin4ever3 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. BD2412 T 04:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest (1983–84 European Cup semi-final)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was recently deleted in 2018 ([see previous AFD]), and is still not notable despite it being recreated. The bulk of the sources come from player's autobiographies. There is a lack of independent sources from news outlets conferring a lasting notability of the match. It's no more relevant than any other semi-final that has taken place since or before. NapHit (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of football-related deletion discussions. NapHit (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments at previous AFD; article is impressive but it's all style and no substance, and I'm not convinced GNG is actually met. Giant Snowman 16:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from me as well. More important matches don't have an article and I quite frankly haven't understood the point of this one specifically. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The assumption that GNG isn't met is kinda stupid in my opinion, you can easily pass GNG on these types of articles. Other policies need to be pointed to like WP:ARTN which I pointed to last AfD! Also I felt last time and it wasn't done, but maybe this time we can merge a bit of the content too 1983–84 Liverpool F.C. season to improve that please. And far more importantly, there are sources here that can be used in other articles that need them for example FC Dinamo București and 1983–84 FC Dinamo București season has no sources what so ever for this subject part. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm puzzled by the history here, and User:NapHit's comments where he notes that the article was recreated after an 2018 AFD. But the article was created in 2014, years before that AFD, and there's no indication in the log that it was ever deleted. Also, I don't see any attempt to contact the still active editor who created the article. Digging further, I can find two previous AFD discussions from 2011 (which I've added to the top), including a Salting. And an RFD as well. Without looking at the content, it all looks very deletable (and I haven't looked closely at that yet) - but without more time to dig in, I thought I should at least make a preliminary comment. Nfitz (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that point either, as I spotted the same thing when I looked in the article history. I can't explain why the history shows the page was created in 2014, when there was an AFD concerning the page in 2018. Were there two separate articles on wiki in 2018? It should also be noted that the original editor of the page has two userpages detailing the match, here and here. Since there have been three previous AFDs that have come to a consensus of delete and one to redirect the article, it seems these backups could be used to create the article again whenever it's deleted. Is there a case for them to be deleted as well or not? NapHit (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I also found a DYK in 2013 for this article. Which begs the question of how an article deleted twice in 2011, and recreated in 2014, had a 2013 DYK. The answer is that there's a 2013 version of this article, that was redirected to 1984 European Cup Final#Route to the final per the outcome of the second 2011 AFD and protected - the history is here. And then there's the 2019 RfD discussion. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, does this qualify for WP:G4? Second, a slightly different title was salted in 2011, probably recommending salting here as well. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an argument that it does. NapHit (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Vojáček

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process. Appears to fail both wp:GNG (no suitable coverage visible; sources are just listings etc.) and also the sports SNG (appears to have just played in 3 local clubs) North8000 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet SNG (WP:NFOOTBALL) through numerous appearances in a WP:FPL, namely the Czech First League. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the SNG WP:NFOOTBALL, sources are pretty routine but I bet that can be improved. Govvy (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've accepted many similar Das osmnezz articles in my day at AfC. This user generally does a good job of tracking down sources for players which pass WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and writing stub articles on them even if the players themselves tend to be on the obscure side. SportingFlyer T·C 03:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The full article is explained and has good resources Iranwikimanage (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn WP:snow I think I'm going to let others do the sports articles. :-) North8000 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Station, California

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

Another isolated siding eventually enveloped by expanding sprawl from Union City. No sign it was ever considered a separate town. Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a rail location, not a town. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a difficult term to search for but this appears to have just been a few railroad-related buildings before it was swallowed up by sprawl in the 70s and 80s. –dlthewave ☎ 00:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Saqib, I have recovered the sourced version of the article. Please review and accordingly reconsider. Otherwise, I have to search and add Urdu sources which I presume are readily available. Störm (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating this BLP for deletion, I ran a Google search and found trivial coverage in RS. Nothing in depth. --Saqib (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the coverage is in Urdu language newspapers, magazines which we cannot find in single Google search. Störm (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the person is notable preacher and most of the coverage about him is in Urdu. I have tried to gather some, but anyone with Urdu language proficency will be helpful. He is one of the most popular preacher in Pakistan after Tariq Jamil, as per subscriber count on his verified YouTube channel. I think, there are plenty of interviews/coverage in his native language (Urdu/Punjabi) which we are missing in single Google search. Thank, Störm (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging Hammad as they are administrator on Urdu WP and may possibly find coverage about him in Urdu. Störm (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is notable. Due to lack of online English resources. Issue of lack of online coverage of Pakistani related articles, The scholar himself is quite less media frenzy in terms of interviews etc but well known because of his sermons and has quite a fan following. References were hard to find from the automatically tagged resources with the article title on top, but a manual search finds reliable sources both in book and Pakistani mainstream media.^[1]^[2]— Hammad (Talk!) 02:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wiesenhütter, Rolf (25 November 2019). Der Islam, das Judentum und das Christentum: Die monotoistischen Religionen anhand der Bibel erklärt. ISBN 9783750420892.
^ "پیرزادہ محمد رضا ثاقب مصطفائی وطن واپس پہنچ گئے". Daily Dunya. 11 October 2019.

Keep In Urdu the coverage is extensive. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in Urdu and notability is explicitly assured. Atleast, it is not Run of the mill - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Now the article is with many reliable resources so that once again it should be review user: Maizbhandariya
KeepObaid Raza (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations are there to make the article notable--Irshadpp (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polish student ID

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

Unreferenced one-liner Rathfelder (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep My bad. I started it and completely forgot it, and nobody else cares :-( . I added refs to basic things. Clearly a notable subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have trouble seeing how this topic meets WP:GNG. Staszek Lem, could you address this issue? Right now the article uses only PRIMARY (legal) documents as references. Honestly I don't see why it shouldn't be merged to Campus card which could benefit from a "by country" overview. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have troubles seeing why it must be merged into strictly US-related article. GNG is but a guideline. I fail to see why an official document used by millions can possibly be non-encyclopedic. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:YOU ARE BULLSHITTING HERE, OK? Gosh, citing essays ... Staszek Lem (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw this nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mouhamed Niang

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances in fully-pro league. The only cup game for Thistle was against non-FPL opponent. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and yet another non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He made 14 appearances for Montrose in Scottish League One, how is this not a pro league? Also his appearance for Thistle in the cup was also against Montrose who as I’ve already said are in a professional football league, League One. I see this may be a rule on wiki but I don’t understand how this is the case ?Partickthistle123 (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Partickthistle123: That is because the Scottish League 1 is not deemed to be a proffesional league based off WP:FPL as only the top 2 tiers of Scottish football can be deemed to "professional". It's the same with that cup game as Montrose was in League One at the time. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTBALL by virtual of Montrose not being in a WP:FPL based league. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Protégé (season 1) finalists

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

The lists of finalists are already available on the seasons' article. Majority of the names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements by assuming they have inherited notability just from being finalists. If they are notable, then they should have their own articles (as a few already do). The sourcing in both these articles are low level as well. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete anything needed can be included in the show articles themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As previous AfDs on this have shown, there is a consensus to delete this seasonal lists. Anything notable should be in the article, everything else, including people's bios should be deleted. --Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to their perspective pages: Same thoughts as the similar AfD. There's really no need for a separate page for a list of contestants since most (if not all) of the contents are in the main pages. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. "List of Protégé (season 1) finalists," as worded, is not a search item, so redirecting is out of the question. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Per G7. (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 04:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Knoxville stabbing

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

While the article has nationwide coverage, it appears to lack the in-depth coverage needed to push it over the notability threshold. BilCat (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NCRIME suggests notability may be established through non-routine news coverage, though there was little follow-up following news of the original tragedy. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine crime, no lasting significance. ValarianB (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now. It just not a special case at this point. Please re-create at a later date when more info is available.BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine news covered only in 'in other news' recaps. This will not be followed up in any way, and didn't even take place in Knoxville city limits (eleven miles east of the city is not within the city). Nate • (chatter) 21:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created this article assuming it would get more coverage immediately after the incident and it didn't appear to be a run of the mill crime. I would be open to redirecting this to Knoxville, Tennessee#history, because I do suspect there will be more coverage in the future. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes that happens. It's usually better to wait until it's an incident is clearly notable before writing the article. But hindsight is 20/20, and sometimes we misjudge. Most of us have done it before, and will do it again. Please don't let it discourage you. Also, I've found it helps to get solicit opinions from editors familiar with a topic before creating an article, which is where Wikiprojects come in handy. The article can always be restored if it does receive broad coverage in the future. - BilCat (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Metros

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

Non-notable subject, article history is unsourced. The bulk of citations refer to a single meeting held in 2016. Information about metro membership is outdated at the time of this AfD request. This article needs a lot of work if it is to be kept. Cards84664 00:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cards84664 00:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The article remains a relevant topic especially in the metro system/transportation area. No need for deletion nomination. I will be improving and updating the content of this article in the next few days to improve its relevancy. There are a lot of good academic journals/articles that CoMET has done in terms of benchmark and standard setting. Majority of the world's biggest subway systems belong to this benchmarking group along with NOVA. Jjj84206 (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have taken time to update all the information to 2020 with reliable, verifiable, and neutral citations. The article is now relevant including the member list being up-to-date. The benchmarking methodology is clearly outlined, along with the new objectives of the organization. This is also a notable subject as it's the only credible metro benchmarking group that encompass most metro systems in the world. The benchmarking are credible and very detailed, conducted by neutral organization under Imperial College London (not by individual metro companies). I believe this article adds significant value and all notable metro systems site itself as a member of NOVA or CoMET. Jjj84206 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjj84206: In the history section, Tokyo Metro is listed as joining in 1996, even though they just joined this year. The individual mentions of members joining need citations too. Cards84664 16:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: I made the requested edit. The history section is mainly from CoMET's official website. Tokyo may have quit and recently rejoined in 2020. They did indeed join back in 1996. Please let me know what other edits you suggest. Otherwise, I think we have raised the level of this article to Wikipedia standards. Thank you for your hard work and contribution.Jjj84206 (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The history section still needs to be updated with reliable secondary sources. Cards84664 13:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Cards84664: my recommendation would be to delete the entire history section. While it produces many important research articles for transportation area, no one really cares a lot about its history and formation. We care about its bench-marking methodology and the research findings. This should mitigate all the problems.Jjj84206 (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Eggar

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

Even if it were rewritten to look less like a LinkedIn profile, this page, which was created by an SPA, still wouldn't pass GNG. While he's worked with a lot of people, there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of him as an individual, so fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the article claims one of his pieces won a grammy award. If that can be confirmed that woukd be a pass of one of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, albeit I've searched the Grammy archives and couldn't find anything under his name or albums. PK650 (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep (for now): Evidence the subject passes WP:NMUSIC #1, possibly #4, #5, #6, possibly #7, certainly #8, and possibly #10. I would like to find more independent and non-promotional sources but we should not determine against stand alone status when search results may be biased. I was "almost" persuaded by Atlantic306 to !vote delete, because a "week keep" on rumors is not compelling, but three Grammy's are. The current poor shape of the article is not a determining factor but a promotional tone is evident. This is not detrimental as it can be resolved by editing. See comments below. Otr500 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I did not find anything on winning a Grammy. I did find the subjects name mentioned,

"Other performers included clarinetist Meighan Stoops, cellist Dave Eggar and pianist Augustus Arnone (name drop). He performed
"The Legend of Princess Mulan" that includes "Three-time Grammy nominee Dave Eggar and five-time World Champion Martial Artist James Luk...".

The subject is mentioned as "world-renowned":

"Bellieve in Bristol presents Social Distancing Series with world-renowned cellist Dave Eggar".

The subject was billed as "world renowned":

Museum of Science & History (MOSH), and again,
Dave Eggar, Chuck Palmer Perform 'Hillbillies And Bach' ("World renowned cellist Dave Eggar joined First Coast Connect With Melissa Ross in Studio 5") but these last two seem promotional.

The three references on the article (out of 4) to "Domo Music Group" is primary sourcing (counts as one towards notability), and I still have not found direct sources for the three Grammy nominations, just that they are presented as existing. I think the evidence is compelling that notability is more than fleeting. I found a possibly not-so-reliable source (so will not list it) that the subject was ranked in the top 15 in the world. If someone found this it would corroborate "world renowned". Otr500 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE and WP:SIGCOV. It sounds like a contradiction, but he barely scrapes by with significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Bearian and Otr500. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackrabbit House, Arizona

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

Appears to have been...a house? It's a little murky on the topos because the name shows up on the map after the building does. It's gone now, though you can see what appears to be foundation walls from the air. The name, apparently, comes from the Jackrabbit Mine that used to sit on the other side of the road. Arizona Place Names mentions a "Jackrabbit Well" (named after the mine) but that and a tiny cemetery listed on Find-a-Grave are the only non-gazetteer/clickbait hits. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move. There is a 1972 article in the Casa Grande Dispatch that talks about construction at Rt15 2 miles north of the "Jackrabbit house mine". But I then searched on "Jackrabbit mine" and found this which talks mostly about the geology of the area but does say "Gold and silver deposits within the Jackrabbit area have been exploited intermittently since 1881, with mining activity centered around the Jackrabbit Mine, Turning Point Mine, and the Desert Queen Mine. Mining reached its highest level of activity in 1910, and by this time a sizable community, locally known as Jackrabbit, had grown adjacent to these mines." So there was apparently a community named Jackrabbit, which peaked in 1910. Searching on that name is difficult for obvious reasons, but I presume there are more sources out there. I think the article needs to be moved and expanded. MB 01:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Jackrabbit, Arizona. The community is attested. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Liberal Group

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

The only thing we know about this group is that in 2006 it was an observer member of the Liberal International and that it was composed of a small and heterogeneous group of Italian MPs (exponents of other parties). Only 2 sources mention it. The page seems to me encicopedically irrelevant. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject has relevance and is quite notable from a historical point of view. The GLI was for a long time the only member of the Liberal International from Italy. The article should be improved, but definitely kept. --Checco (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page is impossible to improve, since it is a mere group of adherents (from a certain Country) to the Liberal International. There are many groups similar to this one (Liberal International British Group, German Group of the Liberal International, Dutch Group of Liberal International, Canadian Group of Liberal International etc.), but none of them have a page on Wikipedia. On the contrary, even the Liberal International British Group's page has already been deleted in the past.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – prefer to keep the article in order to improve it, the topic being part of the Italian Liberal diaspora.--Autospark (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment. As I have already written, it is impossible to improve the article, it is only a group of people of whom no initiative is known, this page adds nothing to the Italian liberal diaspora. Pages like this either don't exist or have already been deleted.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the article can be improved. However, better a short article than no article. --Checco (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you were sure you could expand it (with relevant and inherent topics), why don't you do it? There are numerous groups like the Italian one, but none of these have their page, perhaps because they were not considered relevant. Even the Liberal International British Group page was deleted, which is certainly more known and relevant than the Italian Liberal Group! On the contrary, it can be assumed that the Italian Group of Liberal International is less relevant than other European groups of this type, since it is only an observer member (the other groups, except the Romanian one, are full members). In my view, the page should be deleted for total lack of notoriety, relevance and information about it, as well as for consistency with other groups of this type. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keepi think politically there is a difference between the italian group and other groups to this nature. while individuals in other nations have alligned to support such a message, from what it looks like (albiet brif understanding of the issue) it seems as if the italian group is unique in the fact that [then] curent members of elected governemnt broke off to form the Italian Liberal Group. could be wrong, but if that's the case the article deserves to be kept.Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epluribusunumyall I honestly didn't understand the sentence "members of elected governemnt broke off to form the Italian Liberal Group", what does the elected government have to do with it? The only difference I found between this group and the others is that the Italian one is an observer member, the others are full members of the Liberal International.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Huzair Awan

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

He is a 14-year-old child who a few years ago got some IT security certifications and some human interest coverage for it. There is no actual accomplishment and no reason to have this article. This does not even really overcome normal BLP issues, let alone extra precautions we should take to protect minors. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wikipedia has a well-known, and embarrassing, bias against creating and retaining articles on notable women. I think there is a similar bias against young people. I am afraid this nomination is an instance of it.
Being a prodigy doesn't make one notable. Winning awards doesn't make one notable. But having RS write about an individual who is a prodigy, or award winner, in detail, on an on-going basis, does confer meaningful notability. I think young Mr Awan's RS coverage measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above argument. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in cited reliable sources. Satisfies BLP requirements. No valid reason to delete. ~Kvng (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Johan Christher Schütz. Should be retargeted to Varför once created. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Rider Boy

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

The film may or may not be notable, but I don't see how the soundtrack for it is DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film article. The coverage appears to be about the film. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, the film Varför doesn't have an article, so closing as redirect isn't possible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A move to the film's article might be in order, then. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Johan Christher Schütz: Per PMC. Since the film doesn't have an article, it's best to redirect it to the composer. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Sikh Student Federation

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/British Sikh Student Federation

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

This article offers no supporting references and an online search only shows passing references. I would recommend this article for deletion. ES (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of misguided actions going on here. The page was deleted as an expired prod in 2011. Instead of challenging the prod, the creator user:Sikhyouth84 reposted the page, but as a screen scrape rather than the original wikitext. As well as losing the wikitext, this resulted in losing the references (note that the reference numbers in square brackets were still visible). I have restored the history and reverted to the old article. As can be seen now, it is not correct that the article is unreferenced (but I'm offering no comment on the quality of those refs at this stage.

I also note that, bafflingly, the nominator created a second AFD. I've deleted that page and merged the contents and history here. I hope I've tidied up all the loose ends in that operation, but I'd be grateful if someone else could check. SpinningSpark 14:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the references that Spinningspark restored, one is 404, two are to a messageboard, one is to the organization itself, and the last is to an article about the murder of the organization's founder. A WP:BEFORE finds many sources about this murder but almost nothing about the organization. Two books about religious life in British universities mention the organization merely in passing in their introductions (strangely, in almost identical terms) and searching news and academic sources finds either mention of the murder or nothing at all. Since all the sources about the murder are not about the organization, they can be ignored, which leaves, well, almost nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the article is now substantially different from the one that was originally nominated, I think it's reasonable to let this run for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supanut Suadsong

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

The footballer has never played in a fully professional league (just signed for one the clubs, but he is a goalkeeper, so it is far from obvious that he would ever play), thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, fails GNG, NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Burney

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

My attempts at finding sources reveal nothing in terms of reliable sources about the subject and thus WP:GNG does not appear to be satisfied. There are claims of working with some notable artists, but Wikipedia is not AllMusic, and there is not enough on which to build a WP:BLP. I am unable to find any reliable sources for the Grammy and Juno nominations claimed in this article. Kinu ^t/_c 07:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I ran a Google search and could not find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black And Tan Virginia Foxhound

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG, the single source provided not RS. I have found references to “Virginia foxhounds” in three books,^[1]^[2]^[3] all mention it as a progenitor of the Black and Tan Coonhound but none of them state anything else at all and none mention the “Black and Tan”. Cavalryman (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ Alderton, David (2000). Hounds of the World. Shrewsbury: Swan Hill Press. p. 158. ISBN 1-85310-912-6.
^ Fogle, Bruce (2009). The Encyclopedia of the Dog. New York: DK Publishing. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-7566-6004-8.
^ Hancock, David (2014). Hounds: Hunting by scent. Ramsbury, Marlborough: The Crowood Press. pp. 137 & 143. ISBN 978-1-84797-601-7.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some proper sources can be found. I've searched, and come up with nothing of any use. I found five mentions in the identical blurb that prefaces a reprint of each of five old books published without ISBN by Read Books (these five), which I think can safely be discounted. Even the one solitary (and patently non-WP:RS) source in the article no longer has a page on it, taking you instead to one on the Black and Tan Coonhound. The Virginia Foxhound is supposedly the state dog; but the Virginia Foxhound appears to be a club and an annual foxhound show in Virginia, but not a dog breed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JLAN. Its name is mentioned - and only its name! - in some books. Just because something exists does not mean that it requires an article on Wikipedia, especially when there is no reliable verbiage to go with it. William Harristalk 23:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Apocalypse (film series). – bradv🍁 06:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tribulation (film)

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

Despite starring several notable people, this film doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. The article is currently unsourced, and the only source I could find directly discussing this film in-depth is [5]. This film is mentioned in one paragraph at [6], but that paragraph is really only talking about the series as a whole, not this film in particular. This film is from 2000, so it is possible there are print sources. This is the third film in Apocalypse (film series), the fourth was recently redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocalypse IV: Judgment. This film may have Howie Mandel in it, but it's still a WP:GNG failure. Hog Farm (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

‘’Disagree’’ I can see where notability may be called into question, however I think the numerous notable articles involved in this work give it plenty of standing to remain. This article is in desperate need for better sources for sure, but the subject itself is plainly within WP:GNG. ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree / Merge - article needs work Eternal Father (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main series article, and do the same with the article on film 2 in the series. The series as a whole might be notable, but the individual films probably aren’t. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The series itself appears to be notable, I think, but this individual movie does not by comparison. I agree. It may have prominent performers in it, but as stated above there doesn't appear to be that much coverage. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of roads in Shenzhen

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

Is intended to be a page listing various lists of roads. However, only one of the lists on here actually exists. I don't see a good reason for this to exist if it's only listing one actual list. Hog Farm (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:UNNECESSARY isn't sufficient reason to delete. One advantage of lists over categories is that they can have WP:REDLINKS. pburka (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a list of lists and there's only one entry that's not a redlink. Hog Farm (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are the redlinked topics not notable? Is the list indiscriminate? pburka (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and List of roads in Nanshan, Shenzhen. A list of notable major roads makes sense, some attempt to list all "streets, roads, avenues, boulevards and expressways" does not. Yes, this is indiscriminate. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That problem can easily be fixed through editing by clarifying the inclusion criteria in the relevant lists. pburka (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of roads in Nanshan, Shenzhen seems to be a notable list, and most their entries have their own standalone article, so I don't see the reason beind deleting that. Mopswade (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list is not a list if there is only one blue-linked entry, and even that may not be notable on its own. Ajf773 (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would be a valid navigational list if it navigated between anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jacob Collier. No prejudice against removing this redirect once the merge is completed. – bradv🍁 06:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Jacob Collier

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

Not sure why this needs split out from the main albums pages and the discography section of the Jacob Collier article. Generally, list of songs recorded by x articles are for if the artist has a very large number of songs produced, this appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of the track listings of this figures albums. These works appear to either all be covers or not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Upchurch for a similar situation, which ended in a deletion of the page. Hog Farm (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Clearly a WP:CONTENTFORK from parent article. Previous deletion similar to this nomination supports this claim. ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of info that should be covered in the musician's various album articles. Non-album songs, if notable, can be listed in the discography section at the musician's main article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an appropriate list for a 4 time Grammy winner's recordings. We have similar lists for other notable performers. List of songs recorded by the Beatles, List of songs recorded by Shaan. The article Jacob Collier would be too cumbersome with the list of songs added. Lightburst (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE There doesn't seem to be any song he wrote which is notable enough to have its own article. Covering famous people's stuff on YouTube gets him Grammy Awards and media attention it seems. I think this would fit in his main article. Dream Focus 19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At first glance, it seems reasonable given the number of bluelinked songs... until you realize that none of the bluelinked songs are songs by this person. They're links to articles about other people's songs that he covered. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jacob Collier: Per Dream Focus. It's not necessary for the subject to have a list of songs since it can be noted in his discography. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jacob Collier. The list of songs is short enough that it can be covered in the discography as most songs are related to one of the artist's albums. We don't need to include every single YouTube song or cover he's recorded either. Ajf773 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knollwood, Botetourt County, Virginia

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

Subdivision with no sign of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually passes WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized, populated place. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What legal recognition does it carry, and what makes this a distinct place that we would cover separately from the surrounding area which is full of similar subdivisions? The GNIS database is notorious for mislabeling and actually cites the "Malcoms Roanoke Valley Map", not an official source. –dlthewave ☎ 12:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources showing a pass of GEOLAND. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

System Commander

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

Long-dead software which gained only modest coverage in its day. Totally uncited article. Further sources are available at it's Wikidata page, mostly reviews. Nothing indicates WP:SUSTAINED coverage or interest. Daask (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brief Google Books search indicates broad enough and sustained coverage to satisfy GNG: eg. InfoWorld 1994-09-05 p. 97, 1995-06-19 p. 132, 1998-08-03 p. 96; PC Mag 2000-05-09 p. 208, 2002-03-26 p. 48 etc. I will try to improve this article, if I find the time (my to-do-list is long and wiki time short these days...). Pavlor (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the reviews mentioned in the nomination, and the high-quality sources found by User:Pavlor. Modernponderer (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search produces atleast a few results for the subject. Subject therefore meets WP:GNG. Article must be kept and allowed to be brought up to acceptable standards. Other users in this thread offering to do this support my view that the article remain. ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Alexander

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality TV show contestant. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's still getting coverage, years later, e.g., this profile from Newsweek in 2018. Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, Newsweek post-2013 is not particularly reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. What a shame that one of the country's great news outlets has been diminished. Cbl62 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, question. She won the reality show contest. I thought that made her notable. Can someone please point me to when consensus changed? Bearian (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per past WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Wasswa

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No sourced appearances for senior NT, despite the claims in the article BlameRuiner (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Heaps of coverage in the Ugandan press for being the vice captain of one of their largest teams and was called up to the national team camp on 9 March. He had previously played for the Cranes U20 team. Obviously he hasn't made the national team yet because of recent world events but he should clear the line on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siraje Ssentamu

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No referenced appearances for national team, despite the claim in the article -- BlameRuiner (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's the best defensive midfielder in the Ugandan league and is well covered by his country's national press on WP:GNG grounds (such as [7]). SportingFlyer T·C 06:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the Uganda league isn't a WP:FPL league. HawkAussie (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple more sources to help the WP:GNG argument. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a FPL or for a senior international team (despite what the article claims). He fails WP:GNG due a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even reviewed the coverage in the article? National Ugandan press writes feature stories on him. SportingFlyer T·C 19:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. May be notable but its current content is unsalvageable promotion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy

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

The whole thing reads as an advertisement. I'm sure the topic covered is otherwise notable, but I believe there might be some covert WP:UPE going on here given its structure and content. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AGF. It was created by an admitted fan, not a paid editing. It needs trimming, but there's no substantive reason to delete it. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to my previous comment on the related AFD. Also, I wouldn't say this needs trimming because I could not find a single line of prose worth saving. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The subject is certainly notable—I can turn up a range of secondary literature discussing the Strategy from a quick Google ([8], [9], [10]). The article is one-sided but the claim that there's nothing worth saving looks overblown to me—e.g. most of the "Overall aims" section just summarises the announced objectives of the programme. Probably needs trimming and balancing, not deletion. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 00:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nizolan: That section would have to be re-written to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. You're not supposed to say what something's intention is in Wikipedia's voice. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Yes, it would, but the section doesn't use "Wikipedia's voice" throughout. "The three key aims of the policy are: to define new markets where Kazakhstan can form productive partnerships and create new sources of economic growth, to create a favorable investment climate, and to develop an effective private sector and public-private partnerships." is fine as a description of the aims of the policy. You could definitely edit it to "According to the Kazakh government," or "The three stated aims" or something like that to make it clearer, but that's not a radical enough change to merit deleting the entire thing and starting from scratch. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.@Bearian: Did you want to change your !vote here to reflect the other AFD or nah? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this and the other discussion. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Close, but no one has been able to prove that this is either legally recognized or inhabited. – bradv🍁 06:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lochridge, Virginia

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

One of many small subdivisions in the area, Lochridge consists of a single street and shows no sign of being a distinct community or meeting GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a legally recognized, populated place. Meets WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GEOLAND as an unincorporated inhabited community. See: Jermantown, Virginia, Kernstown, Virginia, and Lick Skillet, Virginia for comparable communities. ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources describe this as an "unincorporated community"? Currently the only source is the GNIS database, which describes it as a "populated place" and is notorious for mislabelling. I couldn't find coverage of civil war battles, name origins or anything else that would put it on par with other notable places. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNIS listing is not legal recognition. Subdivision/neighborhood archive source fails GEOLAND2, lacks coverage. Reywas92^Talk 00:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subdivision, no evidence this is a legally recognized place of its own. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knollwood, Albemarle County, Virginia

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

Subdivision stub created from GNIS data; does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually passes WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized, populated place. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know it's a legally recognized place? It's not a CDP, does it have a post office? GNIS doesn't count. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GEOLAND2, needs significant coverage. No evidence of legal recognition. Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nehru College of Engineering and Research Centre

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

9 sections devoted to controversies; article is highly critical of the subject (after the introduction); article partially relies on news sites that are usually avoided due to being non-notable; 3 sections for one controversy (the suicide); out of all controversies, only one is notable enough in my opinion; in any case, the college is known only for these controversies RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. Could doubtless be pared down, but the topic is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the college is known only for controversies, doesn't that mean it has a significant impact? This means that it is highly notable. Santosh L (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Gardens, California

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

Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND as an unincorporated inhabited community. See: Jermantown, Virginia, Kernstown, Virginia, and Lick Skillet, Virginia for comparable communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudeDavid (talk • contribs)
@ClaudeDavid: Unlike Lick Skillet, this locality is within a city's limits. Unlike Jermantown and Kernstown, it has no independent history of its own before getting swallowed up by sprawl from a larger community. It's just a modern subdivision with no history of its own. Maybe it was outside the Atwater city limits at some point, but that's no longer the case even if so, and that alone wouldn't be sufficient for it to have independent notability. CJK09 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and possibly redirect to Atwater, California. It's not unincorporated; the article was one of thousands mass generated by scraping locality names and coordinates from the GNIS database, and all articles generated from this data described their subjects as "unincorporated communities" regardless of whether they actually were. Looking at the city zoning map of Atwater, California, we can see that it's not a standalone community, but a subdivision in Atwater, inside the city limits. I found no significant coverage and no mentions at all other than run-of-the-mill coverage in old city plans, court records, etc. CJK09 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Housing developments/subdivisions are rarely notable regardless of whether they receive services from a city or the county, and this is no exception. Above examples appear to be historically stand-alone places that have been surrounded by sprawl, not housing developments. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flourney, California

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

These all appear to be ranches with no evidence of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D Flourney, California. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual non-notable ranches that appear never to have been actual communities. CJK09 (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotirmayananda Saraswati

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

Delete - Page lacks reliable sources and appears to be advertising/promotional Hb1290 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs work, yet meets the notability requirements since he is a Hindu saint. Eternal Father (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Hindu saint is not mentioned as a hallmark of notability at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it shouldn't. There is no central body in Hinduism that declares whether someone is a saint or not. It is usually a title given, if not by the subject themselves, by a small group of followers. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a laundry listof publications is not worthy of having an entry at Wikipedia. The man has not attracted any significant scholarly research. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent sources on the figure.Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.instagram.com/triplethemogul/

[2] ttps://www.instagram.com/p/B-uKEz5Ai9f/

[3] Wiesenhütter, Rolf (25 November 2019). Der Islam, das Judentum und das Christentum: Die monotoistischen Religionen anhand der Bibel erklärt. ISBN 9783750420892.

[4] "پیرزادہ محمد رضا ثاقب مصطفائی وطن واپس پہنچ گئے". Daily Dunya. 11 October 2019.

[5] Alderton, David (2000). Hounds of the World. Shrewsbury: Swan Hill Press. p. 158. ISBN 1-85310-912-6.

[6] Fogle, Bruce (2009). The Encyclopedia of the Dog. New York: DK Publishing. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-7566-6004-8.

[7] Hancock, David (2014). Hounds: Hunting by scent. Ramsbury, Marlborough: The Crowood Press. pp. 137 & 143. ISBN 978-1-84797-601-7.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]