Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 March	7 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DSV Road

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

Division of DSV that doesn't seem notable on its own. Maybe could be merged into the DSV article, as it isn't mentioned there, but I'm not completely solid on it since it doesn't seem notable anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Dorama285 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colgate-Palmolive Pakistan

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

Not notable subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive. One of the citations are essentially a press release and the other two are primary. Plus, nothing comes up for it in a search except trivial stuff about stock prices. I might be for merging into Colgate-Palmolive also, as it's mentioned there in passing, but I still don't think it's necessarily notable enough for even that. The historical company might be though, but then if that's the case there should just be an article about it instead of this one. Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one easily pass WP:COMPANY because it has significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. And per this news covergae, the company is "a household name and market leader in many segments within the FMCG sector." --Saqib (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am convinced by Saqib's argument above and the article already has 2 references from Dawn (newspaper) and 1 reference from Business Recorder (business newspaper) – both major independent newspapers of Pakistan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. The sources don't meet WP:RS and the page has received zero attention in seven years from any user other than one good samaritan (Störm). I would be amenable to merging, but I think deletion is more appropriate. Dorama285 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colgate-Palmolive. Most sources are routine coverage. Maybe with the exception of the fine for deceptive marketing. --MarioGom (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Saqib. If someone opened the links provided by Saqib then they will see that there is more than enough coverage to pass WP:NCORP. If the result of this article is to delete then please move it to my draftspace. I will expand it using the given sources. Störm (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subsidiary in my view in light of the sources per Saqib. Mar4d (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 23:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Petaling Jaya Museum

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

fails WP:ORG Gnews in English and Malay names yields just passing mentions. One would expect a museum aged over 12 years to get more coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM; article has sources which provide significant coverage and seem substantial to me; i expect further sourcing available about museum's opening, closure, re-opening, more. --Doncram (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is entirely different or same as the Museum of Asian Art, also in Petaling Jaya, also known as "Muzium Seni Asia", also conceivably known sometimes as Petaling Jaya Museum. Insight Guides: Explore Kuala Lumpur states that Petaling Jaya "boasts an excellent museum and conservatory" meaning that one, which it goes on about. If it is different, it is notable also and should be linked from the AFD topic article, and an article for it should be created in order to continue/expand Wikipedia's coverage about museums of the world, which are basically all notable (except small private never-open-to-the-public ones). If it is same, then there is substantial more to add to the current article. There are 8 hits in "Google books" search link above, but the specific coverage about the museums is not available via free previews.--Doncram (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From further browsing, it seems to me to be the same, and there is lots available. The museum hosts important exhibitions which get coverage, e.g. 2017 article in New Straits Times. The current Wikipedia article makes it sound very boring, but it seems more likely to me that it is interesting and up-and-coming in fact. --Doncram (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's coverage about museums of the world, which are basically all notable": That is false, museums have no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ITSAMUSEUM. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSAMUSEUM is an essay. You haven't addressed how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources in the article are reliable in the wikipedia-sense (WP:RS). The only reasonable coverage presented is the New Straits Times article, and it barely provides any information about the museum. Fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we keep Museums - even better when they pass WP:N. Other non trivial sources exist. Lightburst (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I easily found another source that I don't think has been mentioned yet: "Heritage Dolls" in the New Strait Times (2017), which is a detailed description of a Petaling Jaya Museum exhibit. Also, WP:ITSAMUSEUM. Yes, that's just an essay, but essays are helpful and when they get cited a lot, it indicates that the essay makes a compelling argument. As Lightburst says, we keep museums. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this article should be delete. It have some references about this article and in my opinion, it should be keep. --Claude Warrior (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Vanuatu relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. A search in gnews came up with nothing specific. The only relations between these countries is diplomatic recognition. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Yilloslime (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizarre country pairing, with no evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Achapka

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

What Achapka is doing is definitely admirable but I can't find a single source that has in depth coverage of her. It appears this is far WP:TOOSOON. I should clarify that the sources provided on the talk also do not establish notability because they're interviews and not otherwise coverage - likewise, a search does not reveal actual coverage. Her position, again is admirable and I think she may one day be notable but not at this time.Praxidicae (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. A google search of her doesn't show independent coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC) *Speedy Delete. Per the same reason I CSDed it. WP:A7. When the tag was removed I did a google search and did not find anything showing notability, and thought the same as Praxidicae about the sources.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. The article is also drowning in buzz words that tell us aboslutely nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave this quite a lot of thought and did a fair bit of googling. She is undoubtedly well known in certain circles, and the organisation she founded probably does important work. It's just that nothing appears to get reported in MSM, it's all social media and primary sources; whether that's because the organisation doesn't have a media-savvy press officer or the local press isn't interested in environmental issues, I don't know. Nevertheless the fact remains that we can't establish notability from RS, hence I'm voting to delete, albeit reluctantly because I do think that makes the article (stub) a victim of a policy technicality. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems that the American Vogue identified her as one of 13 women "climate change warriors" in December 2015, though I can only find the article as snippets on Pinterest such as here, and the EU-supported "#Women2030" site profiles her. PamD 08:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, this it? (I got it by clicking on one of the pins then hitting where it said “vogue.com” LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LakesideMiners: Thanks, have now incorporated that source. PamD 21:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just found two news citations that confirm her position as Executive Director of Women Environmental Programme. There is a "disputed-discuss" tag in the article regarding her position, I did not remove the tag, (in the event that it would be controvertial to do so) however, I did add the two citations to the article. (There is also the United Nations program that lists her title here.) @DoubleGrazing: would you consider removing the tag? Netherzone (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Netherzone: of course the disputed tag can be removed as and when appropriate, but just to say that the two sources you've added are a year old and could simply be out of date; meanwhile according to WEP's own Twitter feed (I've included links to recent tweets in the talk page) someone else is the WEP Exec Director (unless there are more than one, of course!). DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Hello! I don't think Twitter is considered a RS, but I did go directly to the WEP website, and it lists her as the Founder/WEP Global President and HERE. So you are right, her title has changed. I know that is a primary source, but I believe it should be the correct title for her position now. Netherzone (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: You're right, Twitter is pretty much the diametric opposite of RS (!); I only meant that if the organisation itself is tweeting via their official account that person NN is their Exec Director, then we can probably take that as read. Anyway, well done for finding those nuggets on their website, you've succeeded where I didn't. :) I'll go and remove the disputed tag if it's still there. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, the page seems to have been improved dramatically. IphisOfCrete (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Netherzone. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 11:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Move to draft space. - While I do think it has been improved, I do still see a good chunk of claims sourced to interviews as well as a bit of a promotional form But I do feel with a bit of work it could be fixed up. Striking my vote and recommending move to draft space as this needs some more work till it should be posted. I will copy it over to my userspace and do some work on it myself as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LakesideMiners I have been working to improve the article, so the copy you may have in your sandbox may not be the most up to date. Much of the info sourced to interviews can be verified by secondary sources that have already been added. It would make more sense to work on the live article, at least to my way of thinking, since this AfD is linked to that and not to your sandbox - how would other editors know to look there? There is quite a lot of information on this person out there. I'm not sure why others had difficulty finding it. I search both "Priscilla Achapka", as well as her complete name, and "Priscilla Mbarumun Achapka". I haven't yet discovered her maiden name, but usually when I research a woman, I search under her maiden name as well. Let me know if you come across it. Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been signifiantly improved since nomination. Mahveotm (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kascha Papillon

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

Fails WP:ENT and GNG. Wouldn't have even met the last version of the defunct PORNBIO. Book coverage is passing mentions and complex ref bio is junk with "rumored" and "supposedly" peppered throughout, not good for a BLP, plus other performers that have ranked higher on that dubious list have been found to be not notable (Lily Thai and Kristara Barrington), few B-movie appearances were minor. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with many other nominations of porn actors from the pre-digital area, it's entirely possible based on the article material that sufficient sources exist given someone having access to the right sources. However, the digital coverage is bad even by the standards of that era and we've got no evidence anything better does exist, so it's another one for the delete pile. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any claims of notability lack support from reliable sources. The Complex article has been debunked before as reliable source coverage. It is a listicle of one writer's opinion. Other claims of notability are not only poorly sourced, but they are also not as remarkable is they claim to be. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom. Borgia Venedict (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Park Han Hee

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, only two sources Google returned are from "GayStarNews.com" and Hankyoreh, a English-Korean website. Non notable person. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 03:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – a Google search of Park's Korean name turns up additional sources, such as this, this, this, this and this. I won't offer a firm opinion on notability yet, as I'm not fluent in Korean; however, it appears that Park has gained a decent amount of coverage in Korean media. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subhankar Sarkar

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

The sources which are presented are not enough for our notability guideline. He was never elected as an MLA or MP. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and also WP:NOTRESUME. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina Trade and Cultural Office

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

fails WP:ORG and GNG. This is a de facto embassy. Embassies are not inherently notable. No evidence of significant coverage. Zero gnews hits in English. And 1 gnews hit in Spanish LibStar (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: Is there a reason you’re slow rolling Taiwanese representative offices for deletion? I was the only voter on the last two you proposed for AfD and if you’re being systematic about it but not being open about it that feels wrong. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NGO. The nomination makes the international scope clear and so coverage in independent sources is the only question. The claim of only one Spanish-language source is incorrect: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there does appear to be adequate coverage. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is not enough discussion of individual locations to determine consensus on notability. Multiple users expressed opposition to a bundled nomination, so it is encouraged to discuss each page separately. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Araby, Arizona

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

Another run of rail sidings which GNIS claims to be populated places, this time in Yuma County, Arizona. checks with old topos confirm that they are all spots on the railroad with no surrounding settlement. It's particularly obvious when the placename comes from the company president or his cook. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note These shouldn't have been grouped without a more thorough WP:BEFORE than simply looking at maps. For example, Blaisdell is described here as a populated place (a hamlet) with a post office, mill, store and a few houses. Araby is described in here as a small settlement.----Pontificalibus 15:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blaisdell. Blaisdell had a Post Office. I'm not finding much for the rest, so they could be deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Inappropriate WP:MULTIAFD as Blaisdell and Araby are definitely notable and this demonstrates an insufficient WP:BEFORE to bundle everything together. Kim, Asher, and Blaisdell also had their own post offices according to the articles so they're definitely notable too. As for the remaining articles (Colfred, Growler, Horn, Kinter, and Tyson), given the apparent lack of BEFORE, I'm not comfortable bundling them like this. Smartyllama (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find evidence of them having post offices, and obviously that means I didn't look the right way. But be that as it may, I question whether a post office serves as ipso facto proof of a settlement. The linked search for Blaisdell identifies it as a "station", not a "settlement" as it does for another name on the other pages shown. I see from reading the first few pages of Barnes's work that he is scrupulous in classifying the names he lists. And I do not take the existence of a station as evidence of a settlement either; even in the east isolated stations are not terribly rare. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if we can reach a consensus about this, please comment in Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Is the presence of Post Office sufficient to fulfill legally recognized place?. I strongly agree that a place being a station does not mean that it is a settlement. My experience with Nevada places is that not all railway stations have Post Offices and stations that do have Post Offices are typically part of a settlement. Cxbrx (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Procedural Keep: I don't have time to research every one, but its already clear some should be kept, and there's no reason to rush these to deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all nonew of these come close to meeting reasonable inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude what you are talking about? Araby clearly was/is a populated place, and that's the only one I barely started to look at.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JPL is a notorious deletionist ~~troll~~ who votes !delete on just about every AfD and I'm guessing the closer of this discussion will weight his !vote accordingly. Smartyllama (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, i didn't want to just come out and say that. John and I have history unrelated to what I hope would be a much more mundane topic of whether popuplated places are notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The continued unjustified insulting by Smartyllama should stop. Calling someone a troll is just wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my personal attack above. My apologies for going too far there. Smartyllama (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone can explain why it is at all right that we have articles on these virtually non-existent places in Arizona but lack an article on Ikot Akpaden I will stop saying that Wikipedia has a horrendous and unworkable system of geographical coverage. Until them, I stand by my view there is no reason to keep this collection of sub-stub articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to create that article, you're more than welcome to. If we lack articles on notable places in certain parts of the world, I agree that's a bias problem, but the solution is to create those articles, not delete articles on other notable places. Smartyllama (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per Smartyllama. The nominator admitted that they didn't do enough research before nominating nine articles, of which at least a couple appear to be notable. John Pack Lambert's "other stuff should exist" argument is not relevant; as Smartyllama says, if John wants those articles to exist, he can create them. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HP FlexNetwork Architecture

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations, which also applies to products and services. Neither the references in the article, or any other coverage I've been able to find, constitutes significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Many of the sources cited are of dubious reliability and several fail to mention the subject of the article. (Previously prodded and deprodded in 2012; thanks to Phil Bridger for pointing this out.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most importantly, I cannot find significant coverage of this in independent reliable sources. I would add that as it stands the article is pure advertising. It tells us over and over again how wonderful this architecture is, but at no point does it actually tell us what it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably meets WP:G11, and/or WP:G12 (see earwig report). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While the opinions of the article subject can be taken into consideration during an AFD, the consensus here is fairly clear that Schwada meets the minimum requirements for inclusion. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Schwada (journalist)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator note the subject of the article has requested that the page be deleted (see ticket:2020021710000097). Should it come to a close decision, their preference should probably be taken into consideration. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two thoughts. One, the speedy keep vote suggests that this report was started by someone "out there (who) doesn't like them," which is a remarkable assumption of bad faith. Two, the subject tried multiple times to own the article for self-promotional purposes, then vandalized it maliciously when they were thwarted, and was finally blocked. That behavior may be relevant when considering their request. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment II There's also reason to ask whether Mr. Schwada's entertaining personal grievances, including [5], go beyond original research and violate WP:BLP guidelines. Regardless of whether the article stays, rev/deletion may be in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The volume of the guy's awards, plus the ruckus in the press over the non-renewal of his contract, make him notable in my judgement, and I found enough about his life and career to reshape the article into a minimal biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hale Interchange

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

Generic highway interchange with no sources or assertion of notability. Yes there are a number of local news articles covering car accidents that happened on it and listings on the state department of transportation about routine construction happening on it, but notability is not established (is already discussed on the notable highways that use it). Reywas92^Talk 01:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but only per what can be expanded in the next week. This is an expansion candidate, but not in its current form where it has few to no links with any other Milwaukee or WI-related transportation topics. If it can't, I will switch my vote! to delete. Nate • (chatter) 03:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sure what it can be expanded with. A list of traffic accidents doesn't really cut and that's all there seems to be. Nominations are based on the current state of the article and sourcing anyway. Maybe it might be expanded to be notable, but it currently isn't. Feel free to prove me wrong though. I'm perfectly willing to change my vote if someone wants to ping me when it is expanded to an adequate level. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom~~ Weak keep Run-of-the-WP:MILL interchange ~~that fails WP:GNG.~~ All mentions are trivial, with no WP:SIGCOV that goes into detail about its history and /or importance. StonyBrook (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Changed !vote due to better sources having being found. StonyBrook (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have been working on a draft about freeways and interchanges of Milwaukee. There is coverage out there, but it's not as easy to find when you're not a Milwaukee local. Anyway, if this article is deleted, I will recreate the redlink and redirect to the freeways and interchanges article once complete. –Fredddie ™ 03:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know I'm always happy to endorse a merge! Reywas92^Talk 03:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note this is mentioned in List of road interchanges in the United States, and coverage there could be expanded. It should not be deleted outright, there is no reason not to have a redirect to coverage about it in the list-article or in a new Milwaukee article. Deletion only to re-create it later is violation of various Wikipedia principles, see excellent-if-i-do-say-so essay wp:TNTTNT. Seems notable on its own; leave potential merger based on editorial considerations to editor(s) involved in this area; no need to impose constraint from afar. --Doncram (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google News searching is overwhelmed by reports of accidents and the like, but Google Books searching yields numerous government reports about the interchange and routes leading to and fro, such as "A regional freeway system reconstruction plan for Southeastern Wisconsin", etc. These numerous sources would be conveniently available to a Wisconsin editor with access to government documents; for others it would require more effort to obtain. I added some to the article, including statement of 1966 construction and a bit more. General other sources are available (tho not all online) which discuss the interchange include:

Greater Milwaukee's growing pains, 1950-2000: an insider's view Richard W. Cutler, Milwaukee County Historical Society, 2001 - Architecture - 308 pages: "This book examines the historic trends and battles which shaped Milwaukee in the past fifty years, including the boundary wars of the 1950s between city and suburban towns and municipalities, freeway construction, and arguments and lawsuits over flooding and the polluting of Lake Michigan." (not on-line, apparently)

--Doncram (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that pointing out that the article is listed in List of road interchanges in the United States is WP:CIRCULAR reasoning; and the list article is not a candidate for a merge either, this article sinks or swims on its own. It there is book coverage out there, it would need to be found discussing the interchange itself and its history, not just trivially. StonyBrook (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and possibly merge. Although I find it's design kind of unique; in the article's current state, I am completely for deletion and completing a merger if a suitable location is found to merge it into. It feels more like a travel guide just simply listing the highways that run on it and their control cities. There has been a maintenance tag on the article for just over 4 years now and the article is still not supported by any citations. If the article is improved with citations and some information on items like its history than I will be willing to support keeping it. At this time I see no notability in keeping it because of its accidents this interchange still is safer than other roads in Wisconsin and its current construction is just preventive maintenance. --KDTW Flyer (talk 00:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A few !votes reflect apparent belief that sources exist and the topic is notable, but editors are trying to withhold "Keep" vote as a matter of trying to force improvement right now. However, wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—if the recently updated content is indicative of things to come, and I believe that it is, then there's no reason to delete. Also, AfD isn't for clean up, and an arbitrary deadline of the end of the week here should not stop progress toward further expansion. Imzadi 1979 → 19:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Adamant1 and Nate say that they are basing their opinion on the current state of the article, with Adamant1 directly saying, "Nominations are based on the current state of the article and sourcing anyway." This is not correct. WP:ARTN says "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article... If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Similarly, KDTW Flyer says "There has been a maintenance tag on the article for just over 4 years now," which is also not relevant, per WP:IMPATIENT. According to WP:NEXIST, "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources." I'm not posting a Keep !vote myself, just because I know nothing about highway articles :) and can't judge the quality of the sources provided so far. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Toughpigs, while I generally agree with you, the comment you cited was directly in response to the weak keep above my vote where the person said it was savable due to being an expansion candidate. Which both isn't a valid reason to keep an article and also never happened. If notability isn't a property of the article as you say, it shouldn't be based on the future property of an article either. If article content wasn't brought up as a keep reason, I wouldn't have brought it up as a delete reason. Apparently though, I can't vote delete based on the current state of the article, but it's fine if people vote keep based on what they think the state of the article will be. The last keep vote above your comment, which your also not calling out despite also being about content because it's a keep, is a perfectly example of that. "recently updated content is indicative of things to come." So, keeping articles because of perceptions about future article content is fine, but deleting articles based on present lack of notable sources (which was what my vote was mainly about) isn't? Alright. Seems a little bias toward keeping the article, but whatever. BTW, see WP:GNG "editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub". So, article content isn't completely divorced from this process. Is a highway interchange, that lacks in-depth reliable sourcing, worth having a permanent stub over? Not in my opinion. Your free disagree to though. Just don't be one sided about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that vague promises of sources with no action is also not a good deletion argument, that's part of WP:IMPATIENT. The thing that matters for notability is the quality of sources that can be found either in the article or during the deletion discussion. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. I was in the process of re-writing my comment to be more neutral and to clarify things when you posted yours, because it seems more defensive on second glance then I had intended it to be. Obviously content shouldn't be the main factor in an AfD and it wasn't in my vote. Content, instead of sourcing, does seem to be the main rationalization for the majority of votes in this AfD though for some reason. So, in this case it seemed better to address it then not. Although, I do agree content is irrelevant most of the time. No one should vote delete solely because the article is a stub or visa versa. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has numerous independent reliable sources. It is one of only about 5 named intersections in the entire state of Wisconsin and not run of the mill. This article could be expanded which isn't a reason to delete as others have mentioned. Royal broil 03:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Could be" being the important thing here. It's doubtful it will be. Especially since someone already said it would be expanded a week ago and it never happened. Generally, we shouldn't vote based on perceptions of future article quality. Also, id like to know where the claim of numerous independent reliable sources comes from. There only seems to be a few at best and even those are questionable. Unless your counting coverage of accidents. Which you really shouldn't be. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So help fix it. Not all of us in the keep camp have the time nor the wherewithal to fix this article right now. I had more time a few weeks ago before the company I work for went into a tailspin and now I'm out of state and my newspapers.com sub just expired. Timing is everything, and this AFD has shitty timing. –Fredddie ™ 03:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources already in the article, there's this magazine piece about how the interchange has a reputation for speed enforcement and several regional planning reports that could be used to flesh out an article. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough significant coverage to keep this. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that move the topic past BLP1E. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K Money

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PERP. No awards or charted songs. The sources cited are record lists, or local rap publications which make trivial mention of him. I was unable to locate any biographical information in reliable secondary sources, and newspaper reports of his alleged criminal behavior do not support notability as either a musician or a perpetrator. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has been featured on a charted compilation album (in which he had more appearances than any other artist). Meets WP:BASIC, WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLPCRIME. The person in question is notable in a national scale, if not international. References included in the article are from notable sources including Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto Star, The Mississauga News and HotNewHipHop. The person in subject is known in connection with a criminal event in June 2018.^[1] TwinTurbo (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.billboard.com/music/6ixBuzz/chart-history

Comment - K Money's criminal co-accomplice was "Casper TNG" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casper TNG). Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He was involved in more criminal activity as opposed to just the one with Casper TNG, listed on his page. TwinTurbo (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having one or more tracks on a compilation album is not a notability claim that passes WP:NMUSIC in and of itself; the sourcing being used to support his music career is for shit (absolutely none of Spotify, YouTube, HipHopCanada, torontorappers.com, DatPiff or kanyetothe.com are reliable or notability-making sources at all); and the only thing here that is a reliable source (the Toronto Star) just makes him a WP:BLP1E. A person is not automatically notable as a criminal just because you can show two hits of coverage in his own hometown local media — making him permanently notable for that would require a reason why the crime was important enough to pass the ten-year test for enduring significance. But there's no evidence of that being shown at all, and there's no compelling evidence that he would pass NMUSIC either. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The person in question is a subject of two crime events not just one. And are the sources by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and The Mississauga News also not reliable? TwinTurbo (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, two crimes is no more "inherently" notable than one crime. To make a person notable enough as a criminal to have a Wikipedia article because crime, what you have to show is that the crime was widely publicized enough to pass the ten year test for enduring significance: namely, the crime was so highly significant that it's reasonable to expect that people will still be looking for information about it in 2030.

Secondly, this article as written cites no sources published by either the CBC or The Mississauga News at all — the only thing you've done is say such coverage exists in this discussion without actually showing any examples of what you mean. And even if such sources do exist, The Mississauga News is a minor community hyperlocal that would not clinch passage of GNG all by itself — it would be fine for sourcing stray facts in an article about a person who had already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but would not get him over GNG all by itself if it was the best sourcing he had. And even for the CBC, it's not automatically notability-clinching "nationalized" coverage just because it has CBC in the url — there's still a big difference between the CBC's national news division (which counts for more) and its local news bureaux in individual cities (which count for much less) when it comes to establishing whether a person is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia or not.

GNG is not just "anybody who's gotten their name into any media outlet two or more times is automatically guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because he has media coverage, regardless of whether he actually has a real notability claim or not": we don't only consider the raw number of media hits that a person can show, we also consider the geographic range of how widely he is or isn't getting covered, and the context of what he's getting covered for, so not all "coverage" that exists is equally notability-making. Establishing his notability as a musician would require him to have accomplished something nationally notable as a musician, establishing his notability as a criminal would require his crimes to be of much more nationalized significance, and even just getting him over GNG would require a lot more than just a small handful of local coverage within the Toronto media market alone. If his crimes were getting covered in Vancouver or the United States, then he'd be notable as a criminal. If he had a national charting hit, then he'd be notable as a musician. But if all he can show is a few local interest hits in Toronto's local media about minor crimes of no discernible long term significance, then that's not enough: having a few hits of purely local coverage in a not inherently notable context is not an instant GNG pass in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No significant coverage found. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unity is Strength (Australia)

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

The only source is something called "The Institute of Australian Culture" [6], a Wordpress site. I can't find anything showing notability, but there is a Stormfront post[7] saying "Are you aware of an old Australian Nationalist song that has been suppressed for over a century called "Unity is Strength"? I have contacted Onenation.com but they are exceedingly slow to post this important song on the Internet - so I am asking for your help in promoting this important song. The tune is the same as "Men of Harlech" (the song from the "Zulu" movie we all love). I think this would make a great song for White Nationalist worldwide if the lyrics were adjusted for that purpose. The current lyrics pertain to Australia in the late 1800's are are printed below. Please help me with this mission, Comrades!!!" Doug Weller talk 14:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I won't even get into the erroneous way the subject is described in this stub, as I can't find any indication of notability. Bishonen | tålk 17:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is evidence that the song was published in 1898: [8], but no evidence that it was ever noticed enough to confer notability. It appears that "Unity is Strength" is a common slogan in Australian history, and that shows up in searches, but I can find no commentary on this song except from the shady organizations detected by the nominator. Let's add Wikipedia to the conspiracy of websites that refuse to allow idiots to fantasize that an unknown song from 122 years ago was written about them and how its suppression is holding them back from greatness. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my comment above may have polluted the ensuing discussion so I struck it out. My vote remains the same, although we can see below that the song has some additional notice in Australian history. If that helps with notability, the article needs serious expansion beyond a mere mention of the song's existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single sentence for the whole entry! Topic is too specific and brief to devote a page to this. Teraplane (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Keep because at this point more searching needs to be done I think. I was going for delete, but I was surprised by what is actually reported. As per DOOMSDAYER520's ref there is a lot of reporting around 1898/99. Not sure why but on a hunch I looked a bit further and there is multiple reporting aorund 1901, eg,^[1] and around 1903, eg,^[2] and around 1910, eg,^[3] and around 1940, eg,^[4]. Weak because all I could find so far are essentially mentions, and while they demonstate sustained, and probably another two short sentences could be added to the article based on such as the above, there is nothing anywhere near in-depth so far. Aoziwe (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "THE ROYAL VISIT". Weekly Times. Victoria, Australia. 27 April 1901. p. 25. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.
^ "SCHOOL CONCERT". Newcastle Morning Herald And Miners' Advocate. New South Wales, Australia. 14 December 1903. p. 6. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.
^ "North-Western News". The North Western Advocate And The Emu Bay Times. Tasmania, Australia. 18 March 1910. p. 2. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.
^ "WARD'S RIVER". Dungog Chronicle : Durham And Gloucester Advertiser. New South Wales, Australia. 1 November 1940. p. 3. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this song, written in 1898, appears to have been written to further the case for Federation, the lyrics were reproduced in full at the time in numerous newspapers, especially in Victoria, including Weekly Times here, The Herald here, Colac Herald here, The Robertson Mail here, Broadford Courier and Reedy Creek Times here, Gippsland Times here, so appears to be well known at the time, but apart from the mentions found by Aoziwe above, there doesn't appear to be much else. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - coolabah is closer to the mark, by actually using what should be used for australian items (Trove) - it would be the possibility of an editor who can think sufficiently sideways to find an existing article in which the material could be productively placed before the inevitable google emptiness takes over and it is deleted... JarrahTree 09:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment - I'm sure another comment here doesn't help much, but I voted above. Given this discussion, it appears that "Unity is Strength" is well-known political slogan in Australian history, used in many environments including this song. Therefore there could possibly be an article on the slogan, but focusing on this particular song may be the wrong way to go. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am practicing interpreting consensus and by no mean to imply my interpretation has any power in the actual closing. Closer please go ahead to conduct your own interpretation and action. Here I interpret the consensus to be a delete for lack of evidence of notability. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Heanue

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

This article on a journalist attempts to use her own works as verification, but I propose that this does not satisfy the "widely cited" and "significant" requirements at WP:NJOURNALIST. The article also cites some works about events she reported on, such as the Nepal earthquake, in which her presence is mentioned briefly or not at all. I can find nothing else beyond the typical professional industry listings and social media. The article could be an attempted promotion, and also note that it was created by a blocked user (though that is technically irrelevant for Ms. Heanue's notability). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Heanue is a senior journalist at Australian Broadcasting Corporation (commenced with them in 2010?), (was?) South Asia correspondent (see here), nominated for a Walkley (see here) and is a Walkley mentor has produced 100s of news reports from all over the world, but is this mostly "just doing their job"? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

انس بدران سبانك

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

non-notable youtuber/vanity spam with a whopping 2.5k followers and no meaningful coverage. The sources included do not confer notability as they are almost entirely unreliable/user submitted. Praxidicae (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G11 and WP:A2. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A2 doesn't work, as there neither is nor was an article on another project. Lectonar (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. All of 7 links related to unreliable websites and anyone can wrote in it, also almost all of this websites copy-pasted from each other. With quick search, you'll not found any reliable source about this person --Alaa :)..! 15:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles in the English Wikipedia are supposed to be written in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Yes, but there's a two-week grace period for articles that aren't, so this would have been premature if that was the only rationale given here for deleting it. See WP:Pages needing translation into English. Largoplazo (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; it would have been prodded after 2 weeks sitting around at PNT; a least that's how we normally handle foreign language articles on EN-Wikipedia. Lectonar (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can’t comment on content because I don’t understand Arabic. Which is exactly why it should be deleted if it isn’t translated. Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability. Analog Horror, (Speak) 17:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Brotherhood of Mutants members. Clear consensus not to keep as a standalone; redirecting as ATD since it's a plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mammomax

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

This article fails to establish notability. All sources are primary. TTN (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor comic book character-cruft that fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Brotherhood of Mutants members, until the deletionists inevitably come for that one as well. :P — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the above list for failing NFICTION. Then delete that list for the same reason. Problem solved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE EVERYTHING!!!!! :P — Hunter Kahn 14:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even notable as a member of the brotherhood, although the name is awesome. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlaqKeyz

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

Fails WP:GNG, de facto unsourced, since none of the references are close to WP:RS Kleuske (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After the nomination, User: Kwamevaughan moved the article to draft and removed the template. Not sure how to handle that. It does not lend extra notability, though. Kleuske (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article indeed does not meet WPGNG hence moving it to draft to enable me work on gathering relevant sources/links to it. If there aren’t any, I will delete this article. Kwamevaughan (talk)

Good luck. I have done WP:BEFORE and did not get more than passing mentions.You do realize this comes across as gaming the system, right? Kleuske (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any coverage of him in reliable sources. Kwamevaughan If you believe the subject does not meet WP:GNG, why do you want to waste your time working on a draft about the subject? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humanoid (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Article that reads like a game guide and lacks notability in secondary sources. All the "further reading" is WP:PRIMARY sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE. This collection is purely as a gameguide. There is no notability for this matter outside of the game. It could be a useful colelction for gamers but there are gamer wikis for that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic lacks significant coverage. It's just a containment article for non-notable topics Wikipedia shouldn't cover at all. TTN (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essentially nothing but a primary-sourced game guide that also contains a fair amount of original research on top of that. None of the entries that have actual text are, themselves, notable, and nearly all of the blue linked entries simply redirect to other D&D lists, making it useless as a navigational tool. Rorshacma (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of humanoids in DnD doesn't exist except GAMEGUIDE. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of character races in Dungeons & Dragons

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GAMEGUIDE. A WP:OR, non-notable list that reads like a guidebook to the game. Most of the links in the list have been deleted or merged. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE. This collection is purely as a gameguide. There is no notability for this matter outside of the game. It could be a useful colelction for gamers but there are gamer wikis for that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list is for fans, by fans. It is simple game guide material without any sources to back notability. TTN (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the blue links go to actual articles and how many are just redirects? Anyone got a bot to count those automatically? Dream Focus 12:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, there's probably less than 10 that aren't redirects, and many of those articles are either in the process of being deleted for non-notability or could be because they lack notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've little doubt this is going to get deleted. But that said, it really shouldn't be. Finding independent sources for this in traditional media is hard. Not because it isn't there, but because there are so so many sources that are either not hugely reliable (blogs etc.) or aren't independent (100s of books where this is an underlying part of the book). But there finding things that inarguably count toward WP:N is like finding a needle in a haystack. So IAR keep is my !vote as given the huge resurgence of D&D ([9]), this is a notable topic as a major part of a hugely influential franchise. But I've not got the hours it will take to dig up sources. I've little objection to the deletion of most of the D&D monster articles--this is the wrong place for almost all of them. But this belongs IMO... Hobit (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, we need such sources. And I have trouble imagining such a list has been discussed outside in-universe game-guide and like sources. The concept of Character race is one thing, the list of fictional races from any particular setting is quite another. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know what we need, thus the IAR part. But yeah, I'm fairly certain there has been plenty of coverage. Lots of history here. Finding the sources is hard just because there is so much stuff. Hobit (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like pure GAMEGUIDE. Fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A catalog of game information whose data came straight from primary game books. Very few of the blue-links actually lead to articles, but instead just lead to other D&D lists. The lack of sources on the overall topic so far indicates a failure of WP:NLIST Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of banks in India#Private-sector banks. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Private-sector banks in India

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

The page does not contain any source not even being updated. Same information can be found here with more regular updated details. This page is unnecessary. Sony R (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Sony R (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of banks in India#Private-sector banks. Ajf773 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus not to delete. Whether to convert to a list, a dab, or remain as a set index, can be discussed outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Saint

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

Not a proper set index. (No ships were named after Simon Templar.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to a dab page. This is a useful page for wikipedia navigation. -- GreenC 16:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also not a proper dab page per WP:partial title match. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the rationale for why WP:partial title match exists and I don't think it's a good fit for this case due to the large number of ships and different ways to write Saint. The reason is you might remember the ship was called "HMS Saint <something>" and this page will help you navigate, versus looking through search results which can be incomplete and more difficult ("Saint", "St", "St.", "San" etc). Unless you have another idea how we might make finding the "HMS Saint" ship articles easier to navigate. -- GreenC 22:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the last sentence of WP:partial title match gives two recommendations; if one those were implemented this page could be deleted. -- GreenC 22:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a dab page's job to provide navigational aids for fragments of a title, just on the off chance that somebody is looking for HMS Saint Something. The rare person who does needs to look St. Elsewhere. What's next? A list of books starting with The Joy of ...? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for the recommendations, they are for a "particular term"; "HMS Saint" isn't one. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think the guideline means by "particular term"? -- GreenC 16:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something that comes up at least occasionally in conversation, text, etc. "HMS Saint" doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a just-so interpretation of "particular term" -- GreenC 13:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not a dab page's job to provide navigational aids for fragments of a title"

Not a DISAMBIG's, but it is what a WP:SETINDEX is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per SETINDEX, "A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name." (bolding mine) The same name, not the same fragment of a name. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can they make it any clearer for you? "and List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise describes a set of ships. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make it any clearer to you? Enterprise is the complete name of a ship. No Royal Navy ships are named Saint. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline exists for a reason, to protect us from a random collection of like-things with no real value other than collecting like things, which can have endless permutations. Fair enough. But deletion discussions can have usefulness in mind. WP:USEFUL says "If reasons are given, 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." Setindex is probably the closest match for what it is. -- GreenC 21:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as set index. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as set index, per GreenC, etc. Spokoyni (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This also constitutes WP:OR, as there is no discussion (outside a forum or two) or Royal Navy convention regarding naming ships after saints. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as set index. The collection of article links into disambiguation or set index pages does not constitute original research. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've notified the editors at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ships. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and convert to a list article. It is a bad fit for a disambiguation page but I can't see anything wrong with converting it into a formal list with references. As a side issue, the introductory paragraph is WP:OR because it says that all the ships are either named after saints or named after places named after saints. It doesn't take account of ships named after people who were named after places which were named after saints (John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent is an example but there could be other anomalies buried in the list that don't fit the description). The latter point is more of a content issue though and not directly relevant to a deletion discussion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, you beat me to it. I finally figured out it was (trying to be) a List of Royal Navy ships named after saints, but as such, it fails WP:LISTN. Nobody out there has compiled such a list AFAIK. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failing LISTN is not really relevant to a deletion discussion because it says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also states "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which makes it a recommendation, not a requirement. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this anything other than trivia? There is no saint class of ship. This is no more significant than List of Royal Navy ships named after mythological figures or List of United States Navy ships named after fish. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move ~~without redirect~~ "HMS Saint" is not a proper list title for a List of Royal Navy ships named after saints. ~~Furthermore, HMS Saint is an implausible redirect to such a list.~~ --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus not to keep the article. There is no obvious article to redirect to and reasons not to merge. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure (category theory)

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

It is unclear what the actual topic of this page is intended to be, and why the content is significant in any way. Any important stuff could easily be moved to other pages on category theory. Jordan Mitchell Barrett (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jordan Mitchell Barrett (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --BonkHindrance (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Another one for WP:MATHISHARD 8-(

This is a 2003 article, written to the typical sourcing standards of the time. The fact our standards have improved since is reason to improve it, not delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were sourced properly, the article still doesn't seem to substantively cover the idea of structure, let alone any other idea. It seems to be a "subjectless" article. Perhaps it could be saved by elaborating on its assertions (e.g. giving a rigorous definition of structure in a category, as is claimed to exist in the 3rd paragraph). --Jordan Mitchell Barrett (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mathematical structure. I’m not convinced that there is a need for a separate article; but the solution is a merger not deletion. —- Taku (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A note: WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a completely invalid delete reason here. But what's here is beyond repair. This article is written like a personal reflection essay. At best, according to nLab, it seems to be a historical approach that Bourbaki was developing as an alternative to the category theory of today, but it didn't catch on. As such, it doesn't seem to be notable. If this is merged anywhere, it should be to Category theory, but I would still recommend deleting – there's nothing here of sufficient quality to merge. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to concrete category, where the concept is discussed in some detail. Insofar as structure in the categorical sense is associated with a pair of categories and a faithful functor, this concept is fairly well described in the concrete category article. I don't think anything needs to be merged, as the target article has better examples and the more general concept is covered in the Concrete_category#Relative_concreteness section. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete~~Redirect~~ to Category theory#Categories, objects, and morphisms (not convinced about the target though), nothing in the article worth saving, but the title is a reasonable search target. It's not clear to me what the redirect target should be. I'm not sure that Concrete category is the right place, since it's about a particular type of structure. Similarly, Mathematical structure is focused on structures imposed on sets. At first I was going to suggest Abstract structure, but that article has basically the same problems as this one! For now, Category theory#Categories, objects, and morphisms is of the right generality but is perhaps missing some details. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC); revised !vote 06:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I wrote this in 2003, when WP was a very different place, and am rather surprised it is still around. I think it should be merged into Nicholas Bourbaki#Works. Bourbaki used category theory ideas rather sparingly, by 21st century standards, and the point of the article, really, was to calibrate that historical usage. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is written as an essay, and even as an epistemological essay. The title is misleading, as suggesting that "stucture" is a concept of category theory. This is not the case, as said in the second paragraph ("In category theory structure is discussed implicitly"). The epistemologic idea that is presented can roughly be summarized as: In mathematics, some structural properties are similar in very different contexts, and some major progresses originated in recognizing these similarities; category theory is often useful for explaining and formalizing these similarities. Personally, I agree with this epistemological assertion, but, as there are few reliable publications and rarely a consensus in epistemology of mathematics, this must be considered as WP:OR. Also, the main concepts of category theory that are related to this epistemological idea are not mentioned in the article (functor and equivalence of category). So there is nothing in the article that can be used in WP. I oppose also to a merge, as it could be done only in an aticle about epistemology of mathemtics, and we do not have any such article. D.Lazard (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You make a fair point. It seems that Equivalent definitions of mathematical structures#Structures according to Bourbaki does give a place for the Bourbaki point of view. So the article could be redirected there, and that section improved. I don't insist on a merge. If the article is deleted, redlinks will arise in history of topos theory, for example. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to have consensus not to keep this, but where do we merge or redirect it to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not merging nor redirecting per WP:LEAST: the title wrongly suggests that "structure" is a technical term in category theory. As this is not the case, any target would be confusing. D.Lazard (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that nobody can agree on a redirect target suggests that there is no obvious one (and demonstrates how imprecise this term really is to D.Lazard’s point). In this case, deletion is a reasonable option. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarrasque (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Fails WP:GNG - the only mention of this creature is in assorted "top-10" listicles (of which literally every monster in D&D is mentioned at some point) and a single article at Game Rant. Sources in the article are entirely WP:PRIMARY from books published by the game's creators or simply WP:OR from fans of the game. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. What independent coverage there is is low quality and does not meet GNG. b uidhe 16:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. As one of the most well-known ~~original~~ D&D monsters, I'm actually surprised at the lack of sources talking about it. But, I really can't find anything outside of the typical "Top Ten" lists and primary sources. There are a few name-drops in articles making predictions for future seasons of Stranger Things, but that's not really coverage of the creature itself, and is nothing but speculation. The creature is, though, one of the few D&D creatures that I think would be appropriate to be included in the main article of D&D monsters, though. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

original monsters? Hardly. I have all the first-edition books and it's not in any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Pagan Warrior (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually meant "original" as in "not taken from pre-existing source", but even then, I had completely blanked on the fact that it was actually named after a legendary creature, probably because its D&D depiction is so wildly different than the source. Either way, I was wrong, so I've stricken that part of my comment. :) Rorshacma (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DnD fancruft, fails NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Rorshacma Daranios (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete? A compromise "redirect" doesn't work right now because the subject is not covered in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The topic does not establish notability, and the listicles are extremely trivial. It seems like it'd eventually be cut when the list inevitably gets too large the first time around, but someone can merge it at their discretion after if they so choose. TTN (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, the article fails GNG, consisting of primary sources and trivial “Top X” lists. But if editors think this is important enough to be on the main article, than it should be covered there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Union product labelling regulations

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

A strange mixture of EU regulations and directives that I don’t see evolving into any useful article. S.K. (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page is literally an incomplete list with some regulations. It doesn't seem to be too worked upon. Editoneer (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northwood Mortgage

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

Spam article in promotional language written by WP:SPAs, website of the subject was also spammed, all sources are press releases. No evidence of significance. Guy (help!) 08:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MarioGom (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally not notable and also clearly created for promotional purposes. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and non-notable. Dorama285 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill mortgage broker. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Building Contractors

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

~~Non notable organization UK-E79 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)~~ — UK-E79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --KartikeyaS (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the nominator as a sock of Wikibaji. The nomination does have some merit on the face of things, so I'm not going to close or delete (G5) it. MER-C 11:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. I can't find any in-depth coverage. In fact what I see relates to the Italian The Associazione Nazionale Costruttori Edili whose translated name seems to be identical. As such, fails WP:NORG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fields (musician)

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

Seems to have no substantial secondary articles that could be used as sources to indicate notability. A few hits but these tend to be short listings plugs or biographies. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The man exists and is a musician. He has an AllMusic entry https://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-fields-mn0001726943 but it has no biography. Discogs.com has three entries https://www.discogs.com/artist/948668-Michael-Fields but details are scares and that's user-generated anyhow. He is a choir director https://www.phoenixchoir-eastbourne.co.uk/about but I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. One thing to note, another musician with a similar name Michael Anthony Fields. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luma Health

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Advertisement of a company G11, Notability UK-E79 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)~~— UK-E79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --KartikeyaS (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are mainly press releases or unreliable promotional websites where you can get article about your company published. Easily fails WP:ORGCRIT. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 08:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous Afd has a long discussion particularly on sources. Can you please state which sources you think are press releases and from promotional websites where you can get your article published? KartikeyaS (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, re "which sources are press releases", MedCity News "San Francisco-based patient communication company Luma Health announced Tuesday", "In the news release announcing the fundraise, the company stated." Pulse 2.0 "Luma Health announced it raised $16 million in Series B equity funding", "Luma Health formalized its partnership with Epic and announced additional EHR integration partnerships." Vator.com "On Tuesday, the company announced that it raised a $16 million Series B round of funding." Essentially those articles are just summaries of their press releases, with interviews from capital investors or the CEO talking about how great the company will be in the future intermingled in. In no way is that neutral or secondary. It's essentially just a ruse to get investors. Btw, according to WP:NCORP partnerships, found raising, and new product announcements are not usable to establish notability. Id say especially funding. As essentially every startup gets funding when it is first starting out. So, there's nothing unique or notable about it. Especially with these kinds of companies. If you get rid of the four or so articles on that and the few others about products or whatever, there isn't really much left to actually establish notability with. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get your poing regarding WP:NCORP but do you think a non-notable start-up would get a coverage in the Wall Street Journal[10]? It has been used in several analysis[11] as well. Not all references are press release. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say all the references where press releases, just a good portion of them. Which still matters. Even if it's technically every source. As far as the Wall Street Journal article, it's still about trivial coverage of venture capitalist founding. Which again, is trivial and not usable to establish notable. The source doesn't matter, because notability isn't inherited. Although I can't directly speak to the other source since I don't have access to it, going by the summary it seems like trivial coverage also. Since it's not specific to the company and more about "patent software" in general. Even if it is in-depth though, it's still based an analyzes of future projections of "patent software in 2020." Which doesn't meet notability either IMO. As its about notability now, not "hey, I think this software will be popular and notable in a year. So lets have an article about it now." Generally, you have to be careful when it comes to things discussing future events. Otherwise, anything could potentially be worthy of an article due to maybe being notable at some point. Anyway, if you get rid of the venture capital stuff and product descriptions from the article your just left with a stub and WP:GNG says "editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Which this article would be. I tend to air more on the side of caution about permanent stubs then others might, especially if the subject also lacks reliable in-depth coverage, but other users are free to take a different slant with it then I do. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 Thank you for the detail clarification and I do agree with the fact that we should not have an article on the basis of having a potential to become notable at future but as per WP:GNG, there is in-depth coverage here.--KartikeyaS (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Advert. Mostly based on press releases or trivial coverage of those press releases. Dorama285 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly remove all press releases and Afd is not cleanup. Please, let me know if I'm missing something.KartikeyaS (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'm a bit suspicious of the nom's sudden interest in deletion, concur with the above !votes - heavily cited to press releases, the rest is WP:ROUTINE coverage. creffett (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I recommended this for deletion last year which resulted in no consensus. I still do not think it meets WP:NCORP as the references fail WP:ORGCRIT. For instance, the WSJ piece is a general announcement and there is no depth to the piece. So yes, WSJ would talk about a non-notable company if you remember that some companies are notable in the world of venture funding despite not being notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe the WSJ might have something useful. It will be good if any editor who has access to it can help us here. Also, if you check the previous Afd, HighKing pointed out that it passed both GNG and NCORP based on this reseach report. I would like to know your view please on this?--KartikeyaS (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See nothing in this promotional article about a non-notable company. Paid press releases do not meet WP:NCORP. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 05:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the sources I listed here.KartikeyaS (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the nominator as a Wikibaji sockpuppet. MER-C 11:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria for establishing notability is for multiple references (i.e. at least two) that can be classified assignificant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Research reports covering the company have long been establishing as meeting the criteria, therefore if two (or more) research reports are referenced, the topic meets the criteria for establishing notability.
- Research report by Orbis Research covers Luma in depth
- Business Insider Intelligence research report also provides enough coverage on Luma

Clearly, this topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. While I agree that most (all?) of the other references are crap and fail the criteria, that only means they cannot be used for the purposes of establishing notability, they may be used to support cited facts. If any of the Delete !voters don't accept the above research reports for the purposes of establishing notability, I would be very interested to hear the reasons. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I'm unable to afford those reports; they're $3900 and $679. Not sure how much of those is actually about the subject. The summaries say "key players covered in this study" and "companies mentioned in this report". I suppose we could say sources exist, but I don't think they have been used. This AfD is bizarre: I'm baffled by "I still believe the WSJ might have something useful". Hand on a second; that's by the editor who inserted the claim! How are we writing an article based on sources nobody here has access to? Vexations (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, the standard required for sources to establish notability is a lot stricter than the standard for using sources to support facts/citations within an article. For example, an interview with the CEO might be used as a source to establish how many employees a company has or where their head office is located, which is perfectly fine, but that same source likely fails the criteria for establishing notability and cannot be counted for that purpose. In relation to analyst reports particularly, they are acceptable as sources that establish notability. By their very nature, they provide descriptions of each company. Even a brief description in an analyst report is usually better than 99% of the descriptions you find in other media (in my opinion). I understand that many of these reports cost $ but that isn't a reason to discount their existence. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I agree, but now we have the bizarre situation that the subject is notable because reports exist that no one has read, but the article is written from sources that shouldn't have been used in the first place. Common sense, then would be to say, sure, you can write an article, but wait until you can access the good sources. Is there some emergency that requires that we immediately publish an article about this subject despite the lack of access to good sources? Vexations (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, yes, it is entirely possible for a notable topic to end up with a terrible article but AfD is not cleanup. You can tag an article for cleanup, etc, but deletion shouldn't be used for these cases. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, well, then, it should be a Keep. I don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The subject is notable because it has been covered in at least two analyst's reports. Vexations (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, yes, that's the conclusion I came to also. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations you can at least use a source like WSJ by looking at its title. WP:SOURCEACCESS states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343, I may find a source difficult to access, and that does not affect the notability of the subject. However, I would expect that an editor who adds the source has read it in full. That's the basis of my good faith assumption that what a source actually says is summarized correctly by the editor who added it. But if I find out that the editor hasn't read the source, how am I going to know that that editor didn't just make something up? That is now almost certainly the case. Vexations (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note and this is why I used it to cite only a single sentence which can be verified by looking at the title of the WSJ post. It would really help if anyone with the access to WSJ can comment here. --KartikeyaS (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely promotion and there is nothing significant outside routine coverage. Accesscrawl (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article from the MedCity News can be used as a reliable source. Please, check this[12] at WP:RSN. Any native advertising post has "sponsored" or "branded" written somewhere in it. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have fixed the article and asked at WP:RSN for the remaining 2 unreliable sources[13]. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disagree. The RSN commenter is wrong on at least one point. The FCC doesn't regulate websites. I could nitpick his argument for a few other reasons (native advertising rules are not widely enforced against small-time operations), but will suffice to say they would have to do better than MedCityNews to convince me of notability. Dorama285 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, neither of the two sources are reliable for the reasons I stated in WP:RSN. Mainly, both appear to be personal blogs by people who aren't regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. As they are just random bloggers. The first source seems to be heavily based on a company press release anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further evaluation of the sources provided by User:HighKing would be helpful in closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WSJ article is five paragraphs long, for what it's worth. Users without a subscription aren't missing much. Dorama285 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow closer I like to intern my skill of interpreting discussion consensus, and for this discussion I interpret it as delete. And I leave it to the admins for action xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOR (company)

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

No indication of notability WP:CORP, Advertisement. Slowthin (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowthin:, have you gone through the references? I am assuming you have checked WP:BEFORE and not hounding me and nominating it just because I tagged your article for CSD which resulted in deletion of the article. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear case of advertisement of a company which is not notable to have its entry on Wikipedia for now.Slowthin (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every source I checked in the article is PR bluff, including the VentureBeat article, which is a press release republished elsewhere. Forbes Sites references are always misleading, it is a self-published platform used by marketing agencies and not under Forbes editorial policy. --MarioGom (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not vote delete then? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1: Because I did not search for reliable sources elsewhere. I wanted to note that sources currently used in the article are not enough, but that alone is not reason for deletion. --MarioGom (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That makes sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Struggling to find many references to XOR that aren't either a mention in passing or a reprint of a press release. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Nothing useful comes up in a Google search and all the sources in the article are either primary, trivial mentions, or about venture capitalist funding. That said, I wag my finger at the original nominator if the reason for the nomination was hounding another user. Although, at least it led to something useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Grammar School

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RS coverage not found. b uidhe 16:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near meeting our notability guidelines for an organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Indian Cultural Congress

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Hemant Dabral^Talk 15:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGCRIT. I performed a [Google News Search] and could find nothing more than passing mentions. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article did not pass our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Organisation in existence for 30+ years, mostly active in the Gulf; multiple sources across multiple years. Easily passes ORG. AfD is not cleanup.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ Cheruppa, Hassan (25 May 2017). "'OICC won accolades for numerous humanitarian initiatives'". Saudigazette.
^ "Doha businessman is president of forum". Gulf-Times. 14 April 2013.
^ "OICC distributes tickets for illegal Indian expats". Arab News. 2 August 2013.
^ "Overseas Indian Cultural Congress (OICC) Co-Ordination Committee Organized Felicitation Meeting to Mr. Varghese Puthukulangara". www.indiansinkuwait.com. 12 December 2012.
^ "Overseas Indian Cultural Congress holds Iftar party". Times of Oman. 16 August 2011.
^ "The NRI factor". gulfnews.com. 26 January 2014.
^ Gorman, Anthony (2015). Diasporas of the Modern Middle East. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-8611-7.
^ "Tribute paid to murdered Congress workers in Bahrain". en.albiladpress.com. 24 February 2019.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per references and reasoning found by Goldsztajn. The article was poorly sourced but I note the WP:BEFORE did not evidence efforts to consider alternatives to AfD first such as notability tagging and possible merges (Djm-leighpark).Djm-mobile (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep based on the findings by Goldsztajn. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Onsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Tone 09:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rust monster

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

A notorious creature within D&D, but fails WP:GNG when it comes to any kind of realworld significance. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and largely sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Realworld significance" has no bearing on notability. Both the unicorn and the dragon have no "realworld significance" but are considered notable. For Rustie here, the three RS's Witwer, Ewalt and Bricken are enough to establish notability for this friendly little critter. Guinness323 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While not really relevant to the topic, I just want to point out that Unicorns and Dragons certainly have real-world significance. Whether as major elements used in Heraldry, to being used as national symbols to being important parts of major religions. All of this and more, I would say, is actual real world significance for these fictional beasts. Rorshacma (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Ewalt is very definition of mention in passing, Bricken is trivia/fancruft, and Witwer, well, appears to be in passing (through I don't have access to the source, but anyway, the ref doesn't even specify page numbers). I'd be rather surprised if anyone discussed this topic in depth outside fancruft-like coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons - I have argued elsewhere that the Arts & Arcana book is not an independent source for establishing notability for Dungeons and Dragons related topics as, despite it being published by Ten Speed Press rather than Wizards, it is an officially licensed and branded product, and Wizards lists it on the D&D site as an official product. While others may disagree, I have not been convinced otherwise. That leaves one potentially decent source in Of Dice and Men, and a bunch of short entries in fluff "Top Ten" lists that really do not denote notability (the one by Bricken specifically mentioned above is literally just a straight description of the creature in-game and nothing more). Further searches just bring up the usual array of primary sources, non-reliable sources, and game guides. I do agree that, as an originally created monster with some small amounts of coverage, it should be covered on the main topic of D&D monsters, and taking a look there shows that it is already mentioned there. Redirecting there would make sense, and the history would be preserved if any merging is deemed necessary. Rorshacma (talk)

Comment And I will gladly point out (again) that Witwer et al sought the license from Wizards in order to be able to freely use any and all artwork, artists' sketches, etc. as they show the evolution of artwork in the world of Dungeons & Dragons from high school amateur swipes of comics to professional oil paintings. Independent publisher, copyright is owned by Witwer et al = independent source. I would also point out that the authors are somewhat less than flattering to TSR and Wizards in several instances, hardly the actions of an in-house author. Of course license holder Wizards is going to market it as an "official" product, who would look a gift horse like this in the mouth? Coverage of Rustie in Witwer et el shows the entire development and evolution from a strange Japanese plastic model owned by Gygax through to its present form. I'll have the page numbers posted in a couple of days. Guinness323 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation and reason as to why it became an officially licensed product is really irrelevant to whether or not it is an officially licensed product, which it is. And to me, official D&D product = not independent. Again, I acknowledged in my comment that there is disagreement on the matter until some sort of consensus among users is established regarding it, so you are free to argue otherwise here. I just disagree with your assessment. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two sources by Bricken are not overly long, and the do contain descriptions of the monster - though that is worded very differently than it would be in a gaming product. They also contain an evaluation that and why it is especially fearsome to characters and memorable to player's - not because of the game-internal logic of power. And why the rust monster is ranked special. So it is not "literally just a straight description of the creature in-game and nothing more". Daranios (talk) 14:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It describes what a Rust Monster looks like, its behavior, its attacks, and the fact that it destroys metal objects, including magical items. That is a description of the monster as it exists in-game. Unless you are saying that "Its super-dangerous" counts as an evaluation. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Its super-dangerous" is indeed already evalution, because the primary sources say that is exactly not very dangerous. Then: The rust monster is an original D&D invention; is among the 10 most memorable and 12 most obnoxious monsters (according to Bricken), "will never be forgotten, especially by the role-players that fought them"; it so fearsome to characters and players "Not because they're so powerful, mind you, but because they're really annoying." None of that is in-game. Daranios (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage (see also comment above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft pending potential improvement; the title can be redirected to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons in the interim. BD2412 T 04:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are several secondary sources, which, in contrast to things brought forth above, go beyond descriptions and listing, but do some evaluation of the significance of the rust monster for players, and what that strange creature says about the game. And its important enough to appear beyond D&D and beyond role-playing games. If this is not considered enough for a separate article, merge to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. That article needs more secondary sources, so merging will improve Wikipedia a tiny bit, while deletion does not. And we are here to improve Wikipedia, are we not? Daranios (talk) 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - The primary sources used are cheap listicles that hold little weight. TTN (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite factual. Some of the secondary sources present in the article are "listicles", some are not. Daranios (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, the secondary sources given in the article are unfortunately either in-universe or in-passing mentions. The creature is already mentioned in the main Monsters page, which is therefore a natural redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page 66 of Witwer et al is a full-page breakdown of how the artwork for the rust monster, the owl bear and the bulette was developed from plastic dime-store monsters to humble sketches to professional illustrations, and how those humble origins helped Gary Gygax to develop three of the first truly original D&D monsters and their abilities. Not an in-universe reference, not a passing mention. Guinness323 (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that the coverage in Witwer et al is in-depth, what is disputed is whether it is an independent source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there are arguments for and against it being an independent source. As long as there is no agreement if it is one or the other, affecting the status of the article with regard to notability: What would be the significant benefit for Wikipedia that would merit a deletion even in case of doubt? Daranios (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it because of dispute over the independence of the source would create the presumption that the source is independent, a presumption that would be counter to the rough consensus that has risen up around that source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, where and how has this "rough consensus" been established? As I am of the opposing opinion, I am naturally doubtful. As long as there is no clear consensus, I am still wondering, what benefit does a user of Wikipedia have from the deletion of this article? Daranios (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The “rough consensus” I was referring to is the fact that articles sourced primarily to the reference in question are not getting kept, so clearly there is rough consensus that it does not constitute a source that helps to pass GNG. The keeping of material that is considered to fail notability guidelines is harmful to Wikipedia, and by extension Wikipedia users. I feel this discussion has become irrelevant to the AfD that is being discussed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor E. Marsden

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

This article is a remnant of the chaos User:Ludvikus was strewing around The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for quite a while before he was banned. The content of this article relates to Ludvikus' obsession with using Wikipedia to further his research into the publishing history of the Protocols; pretty much nothing is known about the subject otherwise, and the whole thing can be a sentence in the Protocols article, if even that. "Someone named Marsden is credited with some of the editions." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge if any RSed/non-OR material here doesn't appear in the main article already. This is definitely original research, about someone who clearly doesn't seem to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. It's really a shame, too. Ludvikus was an intrepid researcher, gleaning all sorts of interesting detail (and less interesting marginalia) about the Protocols and their publication. But working with Wikipedia was not in his constitution, I think. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This serves as a coatrack to talk about the levels of publication of antisemitic works, Henry Ford, his publications and Dearborn and other topics. It shows no actual notability for Marsden and as a coatrack is avoiding putting those topics in their proper context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communism in Washington State History and Memory Project

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the previous nomination made over seven years ago, this web content has no claim to notability or significance. There are no secondary sources about the website specifically, and the article serves as self-promotion. Those who insisted this page be kept suggested its content be moved and the page be redirected in the future, but the last edit was in 2014. Furthermore, those who wished to keep the page did not clarify why they thought this content was notable or appropriate for a move, as it is completely unsourced and based on personal research. CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even an assertion of notability, much less establishment by independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 08:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Looks like permastub. History of Communism in the USA page serves the intended purpose of the page, and does not require a merge from this one. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminate article. This is a webpage about a website about a university research project. Essentially it is ADVERTising a website. We already have an article on Communist Party USA and another on its history. Whatever the article is an ADVERT for needs to be added as an external source for one of those articles. I am not sure if this is a delete vote or a redirect vote, but we should not keep the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Vista Estates, Arizona

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

A subdivision on the south side of Sierra Vista, Arizona, apparently built some time in the 1960s-'70s, and not a separately notable place. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign that this subdivision is a notable populated place independent of Sierra Vista. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sigcov for neighborhood to pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a legally recognized place and fails GNG Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riverzedge

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

Fails WP:GNG and written as per WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Here's what I found: Rhode Island Monthly feature, Providence Monthly feature, Woonsocket Call, bits in Providence Journal here, here, and here, RI Historical Society, GoLocalWorcester, GoLocalProv (admittedly I don't know how reliable these GoLocal sites are -- they look like they're not UGC at least), Providence Business News (rather routine)... and haven't gone through all of the search results yet. Coverage spans years, but it would be good to find more coverage elsewhere (beyond the RI area). It does look like North Carolina State University's Philanthropy Journal tracks their activities, but that's just bits of news. Seems on the edge, but I'll fall on the weak keep side. Any sort of promotional language can be taken care of with editing; it's not in WP:TNT territory. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think my justifying Riverzedge's notablity (i.e. that in addition winning big national grants they have been studied as a model for national organizations, qualifying them WP NONPROFIT "Factors that have attracted widespread attention") sounds a little promotional, but could be tweaked to sound less glowing, say removing stats? JKHumanities|✉ 01:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toy from Hell

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

Contested PROD, it's a non-notable homemade movie on YouTube (apparently with a whopping 54 views). Borderline G11 case after looking at it further, but I'll take it here since the PROD was declined. The sourcing to IMDB is not sufficient, as IMDB can be user-generated. Hog Farm (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)(talk) 03:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and no RS exists. Lightburst (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Home movie released on YouTube. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources do not indicate notablity, and the only sources are IMB links which are not a RS. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Integral eye movement therapy

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

Non-notable psychotherapy. For example, a search for "integral eye movement therapy" in PsycINFO and PubMed returns exactly zero search results, which is a red flag for non-notability of a psychological therapy. A search on Google Scholar returns approximately one ~~apparently independent~~ [edit: apparently not independent, per Roxy below] journal article. Biogeographist (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC) and 15:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Therapy was invented for a case study of one case. see the second ref in article. slamdunk -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NEO. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus, after relist no new comment (non-admin closure) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innovo Management

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

Fails WP:GNG and written as per WP:PROMO. The introduction of the article itself states that it is a promotion company. Abishe (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage that goes beyond press releases and their rewrites. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in regional and national industry-related press. - UFO Music

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Supporters of keeping are urged to list the best sources that they think provide significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pica, Arizona

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

Another day, another siding. There's a "Pica Camp" nearby which appears to be a cattle ranching operation and some railroad structures, and that's about it. It seems likely there was a post office, and there's a reference to someone said to be "of Pica, AZ", but that's the only evidence I found of anyone living there. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In 2001 there were the ruins of a pumphouse [14] according to a personal blog. Found a few mentions of a water stop for steam trains, and some maps show a nearby Highway Dept. camp from when Route 66 was built, but nothing to indicate that there was anything notable at the Pica location. –dlthewave ☎ 21:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand View, Arizona

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

Another isolated passing siding, with no sign of anything else around it except a ranch at some distance to the north. The line was relocated a bit (you can plainly see the old grade), and that is pretty much it for the area except what is obviously an access road for the track. Searching is a pain because of the myriad false hits but while I found a couple of other places in the state, they were all obviously not this spot (one was a vantage in the Grand Canyon, another was a mine in a different county). Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly nothing more than a railroad siding here. –dlthewave ☎ 21:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Basin Summer Homes, Arizona

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

Copied from a Forest Service map, this is exactly what it says: a group of houses/cabins in the Prescott National Forest, at the west end of the Granite Basin Recreation Area. Apparently on leased FS land, but you can buy one from time to time, if the real estate listings are any indication. But that is all I get on them; it's not a community of any sort. Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Granite Basin Lake, though I’m not sure if this 5-acre reservoir is notable either...so I’d go with Delete. Reywas92^Talk 02:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you are suggesting a merge, a redirect would be useless for our readers since the target article does not mention this subject. SpinningSpark 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nondescript collection of cabins that has generated no meaningful coverage. Glendoremus (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor political parties in Israel. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal–Economic Power

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

Minority party lacking in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article for the same party: New Liberal Party (2019 party) Braganza (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and New Liberal Party (2019 party)). We don't need permastub articles on every tiny party that ever ran in Israeli elections (especially those getting less than 0.1% of the vote), otherwise we'd have literally hundreds of them. Anything useful that there is to be said about the party can be done at List of minor political parties in Israel, which was designed to take the place of this type of article. Number 5 7 12:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor political parties in Israel and possibly Zehut. b uidhe 05:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Reptilian humanoid. The significant coverage in secondary reliable sources seems to be limited to a single source (Tresca) which provides a paragraph and possibly another (ScreenRant) which provides a few sentences. This is below the threshold of notability usually upheld at AfDs, and the keep !votes do not provide any policy-based argument why our usual notability standards should not be applied in this case. There is consensus that Reptilian humanoid is the natural merge target. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonborn (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

Non-notable fictional race that fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and this article is either sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources or trivial mentions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false reference. There's nothing factually in the WP:GAMEGUIDE that mandates deletion. It doesn't read like an "instruction manual, travel guide, video game guide, internet guide, FAQ, textbooks or annotated text, scientific journal, or include academic language", and it's not a "case study". Don't quote pages that have nothing to do with your point. - IcarusATB (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GAMEGUIDE, "Wikipedia is not a manual". Inasmuch as this is simply giving information from the D&D manuals, WP:GAMEGUIDE applies. This page tells me a description, alignment and other info that is straight out of the game guides. It certainly has no notability outside of the game. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not fail WP:GNG. Meets all requirements. "Secondary sources" are given. They are "reliable", "independent", and most of all has "significant coverage".

Really? "Non-notable"? The page content is used by literally millions of people who are interested in the topic. It's a game played by literally millions of people. This isn't even a real point of evidence, and utterly lacks credibility. "Non-notable" in this case is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is that it's incredibly notable. Just because they're not popular to you doesn't mean they're not notable.
Yes, it's "fictional". Fictional characters are permitted on WP. Being fictional doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, whether one likes the game or not. Are we going to delete the Kree or Wolverine, too, just because they're fictional?
There's like at least half a dozen references on this page from "reliable", "secondary" sources which are not "trivial". Read the actual references, don't make presumptions about them.
And, of course there's "primary" sources ... you can't discuss the Kree or Wolverine either without including Marvel material.
Additionally, if you look at the recent history of D&D pages that are candidates for deletion on the list of pages in the "Alerts" tab at WikiProject D&D Article Alerts, you'll see that about 85% of them are sponsored by ZXCVBNM. It's pretty clear he's not working in the best interest of Wikipedia, he's purposefully seeking out D&D pages to remove. - IcarusATB (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I, of couse, mean "notable" in the sense of being encyclopedic, not "notable" as in famous or well known.
Many of the "secondary" sources have trivial coverage like "dragon races are more ostentatious".
Calling me out is a argument to the person and is pretty rude. AfDs should be considered on their own merits, not based on who created them. I am certainly not being disruptive._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources Lissauer and Tresca would seem to be independent RS, and as such, would indicate notability. Guinness323 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guinness323: The Lissauer source is WP:TRIVCOV - they only get mentioned as part of a single sentence ("Dragonborn favor warlords, fighters and paladins"). The Tresca source gives them approx. one paragraph but does not expound very much on it beyond how they were based on Draconians from Dragonlance. There's certainly enough for a mention in Reptilian humanoid but not for their own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The very few secondary sources that mention this fictional race are the very definition of trivial. Many of them are nothing more than reviews for products they appear in, that do nothing but confirm that they appear in them. Even the books mentioned above are, as described by Zxcvbnm, extremely brief coverage of them that do not indicate any real world notability, and merely establish that WP:ITEXISTS. Rorshacma (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reptilian humanoid, where they are mentioned. The article is sourced mostly to primary sources, and the secondary sources provided are trivial mentions. As a result, this article fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Current reception is a trivial mention. Nothing in the article satisfies WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Reptilian humanoid per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to reptilian humanoid. The Tresca source [15] is more than I expected, but I am afraid a single non-PLOT source is not enough. In either case, since we have one decent source, rescue what we can with it and merge to r h. Seems like the best solution unless more sources are found (then please ping me and I'll review them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dungeons and Dragons media has served as a baseline for a lot of fantasy media since its inception. Deleting all of these D&D pages seems like a scorched earth policy to me. Waxworker (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider literature

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

It's clear that this analogue of "outsider art" must exist in some form, just as the concept of "outsider" anything must, but the article here offers only one blogger's strict and personal definition (which is already questioned by the article creator as being inconsistent in whether to count vanity publishing). Other sources use the term in many mild and unrelated ways, with no clear definition emerging to take this out of WP:NEOLOGISM. Lord Belbury (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one blog is not enough to establish such a broad category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an article could be created on this topic, but I'm not sure this is ready for mainspace. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NEOLOGISM. From JSTOR and Google Scholar I could only find two sources using the term "outsider literature" to refer to this analogue of outsider art: Charles Bukowski, Outsider Literature, and the Beat Movement about Charles Bukowski and The Harry Potter lexicon and the world of fandom about fan fiction. Wikipedia is not the place for a single blogger's literary theories. I believe there is not enough content about outsider literature to warrant its own page; however, it would fit in as a section of outsider art. userdude 01:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Outsider art is a common and notable term. From which we have outsider music. At the very least this should be redirected and preferably merged to a section in outsider art. -- GreenC 16:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Naveed

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

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, reviews of Naveed's books are available ie. Deccan Chronicle - "Book Review Our Story Ends Here: Love In Times Of Terror", Entertainment Times - "Micro Review: 'Undying Affinity' By Sara Naveed Is a Magnificent Debut", Daily Times - "Our Story Ends Here Is a Beautiful Tale Of Love And Togetherness", but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes WP:AUTHOR due to numerous reviews in periodicals. Article needs improvment, not deletion. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MistyGraceWhite. Article is not so poorly written that it qualifies for WP:TNT and (now) adheres to WP:NPOV. It ought to incorporate the reviews listed by Coolabahapple rather than interviews, but that's no reason to delete. userdude 01:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.billboard.com/music/6ixBuzz/chart-history

[2] "THE ROYAL VISIT". Weekly Times. Victoria, Australia. 27 April 1901. p. 25. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

[3] "SCHOOL CONCERT". Newcastle Morning Herald And Miners' Advocate. New South Wales, Australia. 14 December 1903. p. 6. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

[4] "North-Western News". The North Western Advocate And The Emu Bay Times. Tasmania, Australia. 18 March 1910. p. 2. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

[5] "WARD'S RIVER". Dungog Chronicle : Durham And Gloucester Advertiser. New South Wales, Australia. 1 November 1940. p. 3. Retrieved 7 March 2020 – via Trove.

[6] Cheruppa, Hassan (25 May 2017). "'OICC won accolades for numerous humanitarian initiatives'". Saudigazette.

[7] "Doha businessman is president of forum". Gulf-Times. 14 April 2013.

[8] "OICC distributes tickets for illegal Indian expats". Arab News. 2 August 2013.

[9] "Overseas Indian Cultural Congress (OICC) Co-Ordination Committee Organized Felicitation Meeting to Mr. Varghese Puthukulangara". www.indiansinkuwait.com. 12 December 2012.

[10] "Overseas Indian Cultural Congress holds Iftar party". Times of Oman. 16 August 2011.

[11] "The NRI factor". gulfnews.com. 26 January 2014.

[12] Gorman, Anthony (2015). Diasporas of the Modern Middle East. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-8611-7.

[13] "Tribute paid to murdered Congress workers in Bahrain". en.albiladpress.com. 24 February 2019.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]