< 3 March	5 March >

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) 05:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Marchenkova[edit]

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

no evidence this is a notable artist, searching in Russian and English gives nothing in depth aside from a mention in a book. Praxidicae (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless multiple reliable sources covering the subject in-depth can be found (I came up empty handed), this needs to go. Article appears to have been written solely to promote the subject, and edits such as this one introduced copyrighted material (which needs to be deleted from the history, regardless). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find even a shred of in-depth coverage in reliable sources during an English-language search. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's 2020: everybody knows what spam is and that's it's not allowed here anymore. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't find any proper sources.Borgia Venedict (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage or major works to mention. Fails the notability criterias for WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. - The9Man | (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems she had some attention in 2012 when she was an emerging artist, but it is 8 years later, and there is no significant verifiable coverage of her. Does not pass notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 02:28, 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 procedural keep. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 21:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Welles (by 1485-1515/18)[edit]

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

This is not the same person. Rathfelder (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest procedural close as this is a redirect which should go to WP:RFD instead. --Finngall ^talk 23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Rathfelder (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker, Arizona[edit]

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

Actually the Tucker Place, according to a 2007 topo map. GMaps discloses a horse farm. Mangoe (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNIS is an unreliable source for identifying populated places. I cannot find any evidence confirming it has a population. Does not meet basic threshold for Wiki notability. Glendoremus (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability, currently a ranch. –dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's only a ranch, & nothing noteworthy can be said of it (e.g., historical, archeological, or geological significance), then we don't need an article about it. -- llywrch (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemolithin[edit]

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

The underlying hemolithin paper has not been published in a journal yet and experts have expressed skepticism in public sources. I myself am very skeptical that the claims of the paper are true, if you are an expert, take a look at how they came up with the structure of the supposedly most ancient abiotic protein. Maneesh (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maneesh: Thank you for your comments - and efforts - as presented in the main article: "Although some scientists seem supportive of the study, other scientists may be less so.^[1]" - in any case - Comments Welcome here - or - on the talk page at "Talk:Hemolithin" - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drbogdan: how does the molecule hemolithin meet WP:SOURCE? The paper that coined the term is unpublished and 'Unpublished materials are not considered reliable'.Maneesh (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maneesh: Thank you for your comment - yes - *entirely* agree - a better source may be preferred - and may be in process pending further peer-review at the moment - nevertheless - the initial publication^[2] - in the publication "ArXiv" - represents a published effort afaik - and, as a result, satisfies "WP:SOURCE" - nevertheless - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drbogdan: Cheers, believe me I was very excited by the headline on this, but was very disappointed when I looked closely at the work. I don't think it is a matter of a 'better' source. ArXiv can be fine (WP:RSE), but the extraordinary nature (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) of the claim here needs special attention that makes it different from, say, a well known and credible group publishing a new result in neural networks with verifiable source code etc. The existence of hemolithin would be one of the most significant discoveries wrt to the origin of life, there are no other published sources that verify the existence of that molecule. I don't think there is a single expert that could be expert enough so that their preprint could be considered sufficiently reliable for an article with such an extraordinary claim (at least, not until it had been cited affirmatively many times). I think this makes my position clear, I'll let others chime in.Maneesh (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Crane, Leah (3 March 2020). "Have we really found an alien protein inside a meteorite?". New Scientist. Retrieved 3 March 2020.
^ McGeoch, Malcolm. W.; Dikler, Sergei; McGeoch, Julie E. M. (22 February 2020). "Hemolithin: a Meteoritic Protein containing Iron and Lithium" (PDF). arXiv. Retrieved 28 February 2020.

Draftify/userfy I appreciate the work that has been put into this article so far. This may be a case of the event being too soon for reliable secondary independent sources to develop. There are many reliable sources in the article, but they are just reporting on the announcement, parroting the PR. The discovery itself is not published; Arxiv filters out bogus submissions, but is a far cry from a peer-reviewed publication. And there are no secondary sources beyond a few shoot-from-the-hip quotes from colleagues in the field. I could believe that this will become notable after publication and secondary analysis, but for now, it may be best to park this in Draft or user space until good sources develop. I'm open to other approaches as well. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being. If it fails the peer review process, then it can be deleted. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If as you suggest, successful peer review is required for it to be retained at some later date when the evaluation process is complete, there is no reason successful peer review shouldn't be required for it to be retained now. Agricolae (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yeah, it's probably bunk. But it has attracted sufficient media attention to satisfy notability concerns, and does not rest entirely on the not-yet-peer-reviewed paper. The healthy skepticism of this supposed finding has been adequately covered. Once the issue settles down a bit the article will probably end up looking a bit different, but for now it shouldn't be deleted. Reyk _YO! 11:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 'does not rest entirely on the not-yet-peer-reviewed paper', to be sure, hemolithin is a specific molecule that has only been proposed in the recent unreviewed paper.Maneesh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides any supportive comments in keeping the article made above or elsewhere, the Wikipedia "Hemolithin" article itself seems to be very popular on the internet at the moment (3,418 views on 3/4/2020 re the "Hemolithin" article - and growing currently?) - about a very popular internet topic (33,300 Google Search results on 3/5/2020 re the "Hemolithin" topic at the moment) - perhaps useful to keep the "Hemolithin" article - to help inform, as well as to help clarify any misleading informations, about the "Hemolithin" topic - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, numerous sources covering this ie. New York Post - "Scientists claim they’ve discovered the first extraterrestrial protein", Space.com - "First known extraterrestrial protein possibly spotted in meteorite ", Fox News - "Scientists claim they've discovered first extraterrestrial protein in meteorite that fell to Earth 30 years ago", Vice - "A Key Ingredient for Life Has Been Found on an ‘Extraterrestrial Source,’ Scientists Report", International Business Times - "Protein discovery in meteorite could suggest the possibility of alien existence". Coolabahapple (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - WP:TOOSOON at best, with the coverage so far just WP:NOTNEWS that is unlikely to be enduring if it fails peer review. Agricolae (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is clearly a concept. Wikipedia is not here to prove a hypothesis is correct or not. We only give the information. We have articles like cold fusion and Loch Ness Monster, and we do not remove those on the basis of their reality as true technologies or organisms, respectively. Readers are coming to Wikipedia to find out about hemolithin, and they deserve to know. I agree there could be more sources added, but that doesn't seem to be insurmountable as a hurdle. --awkwafaba (📥) 16:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both the discovery and its doubters have been widely reported, in depth, in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 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 speedy delete per WP:G4 and WP:G5. JIP | Talk 10:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atto Abbas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Atto Abbas

Articles for deletion/Abbas Atto

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

Non notable footballer, per WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With WP:BEFORE, I do not find sources that indicate notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbas Atto. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection WP:G5 also applies, as this was clearly created by User:Solomon joe. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hecla, Arizona[edit]

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

This one was copied directly out of Arizona Place Names, according to GNIS, and I can find a "Hecla Mine" referred to in that book. At least part of the problem, however, is there is every reason to believe that it wasn't at the given location. This 1918 report states that a 200 ft. shaft was sunk at the mine, and there is just no sign of that level of activity here. Compounding matters, the Hecla Mining Company had, in the 1970s, a mine much further south in the state which didn't go well, but which is apparently being run by someone else now. They are from the Pacific Northwest, though, and they do not appear to have had operations in Arizona a century ago. Meanwhile back at the ranch, as it were, there are a bunch of topos which show nothing but an intermittent stream at the coords, then two editions which show a "corral", and such a structure is mentioned in the place name passage. If someone can figure out where the original Hecla Mine actually was and whether there was a town of the same name attached to it, we perhaps could recreate this, but it's pretty clear that it wasn't here, so I'm suggesting an application of some WP:TNT unless someone else can figure this out. Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Minedat has "Heola" mine a little to the east. This fits with this article which states Hecla was named after a nearby mine but had no mining function itself but rather was a "waystation for travellers" abandoned 1898 after a flood. It had a post office, but for only 18 months with mail then going to Cherry 5 miles to the NE. Why the mine was named "Hecla" is a mystery, I'd assume it wasn't for Hecla Mining who did silver, but the entirely separate Calumet and Hecla Mining Company who mined copper, but neither apparently had operations in Arizona. ----Pontificalibus 08:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Sometimes it's worth reading non-WP:RS. This blog led me to include Ash Creek in my search terms. That, combined with the fact it was only called Hecla while it had a post office and Arizona Place Names mentions it was also called "Stone Corral" led me to this detailed history published by a museum (cached here if it doesn't load) and also this article: pt1, pt2 which appears detailed but needs a subscription, as does this apparently detailed article. There also exists a paper An Archaeological Opinion on the Stone Corral (Ash Creek Way Station) of 3 pages in length published by the Forest Service in 1976 which I can't access online.----Pontificalibus 08:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for working this out. I'm withdarwing this nomination. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Serie A[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - barring some massive coronavirus-related disaster, this tournament will definitely go ahead, starting shortly. It is therefore not CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 21:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the situation of the league is still delicate. Some matches are being postponed, others being played between closed doors. Fingers crossed this shouldn't impact the next season, but we can't be 100% certain that it won't be cancelled. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is cancelled, the topic might be notable purely because of that. Giant Snowman 21:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Touchè. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - season starts in under 6 months. 2019–20 Serie A was created in February 2019. 2018–19 Serie A was created on April 1, 2018. We are already starting to find out which teams will play next season. Absolutely nothing too soon or unusual here. Nfitz (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scheduled to go ahead, per WP:CRYSTAL. Infact, if the whole thing is cancelled, it'll be even more notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't be surprised if games were played behind closed doors. There is still a long way to go, but I don't see a point in deleting an article that needs to be recreated. Govvy (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since multiple teams have mathematically quailifed, it's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11cookeaw1 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two teams have qualified, Juventus has ticket information on their home page, if cancelled it can be noted Tomrtn (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I withdraw my nomination, my bad. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:35, 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 keep. KaisaL (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Monds[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NPOL: all coverage is with respect to his failed candidacy and being a libertarian, with biographical details being a non-independent press release from the Libertarian Party. Reywas92^Talk 01:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Getting over a million votes and breaking a record vote count for the Libertarian Party indicates that he is likely to be notable. That said, I'm not sure the coverage in the article holds up to GNG and he doesn't meet the criteria in WP:NPOL. b uidhe 04:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a candidate for the Public Service Commission...even the winner of that race and the current incumbents (except the one who appears to have written his own article!) do not have articles (not that they can't though, PSCs are important). It isn't terribly rare for third party candidates to get more votes than they usually do when either a Democrat or Republican isn't running (like 2006 United States Senate election in Indiana and 2008 United States Senate election in Arkansas) but that doesn't make the loser any more notable. Reywas92^Talk 04:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think he passes both WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, given that he has received what looks like substantial coverage for his being the first Libertarian to break 1 Million votes, his gubernatorial campaign and his recent Presidential run. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the argument above by Devonian Wombat. Sal2100 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete high performance in an essentially non-contested race is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That alone dosen't make him notable, but the coverage he has received for the historic significance of his campaigns (including being the first African-American to appear on the ballot in a Georgia gubernatorial election) does. More recent coverage includes a front page story in the Florida Courier, a statewide newspaper. This clearly goes beyond the routine coverage for a third-party political candidacy. Sal2100 (talk) 21:02, 3 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)} 19:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First black politician to appear on general election ballot as candidate for governor of Georgia seems a substantial enough hook. Politicians are always covered extensively in the press and are inevitably GNG passes by their very nature; we impose a high bar to keep out a certain percentage of self-serving articles about current candidates. This subject seems to have sufficient historical importance to get over our artificial high bar. Carrite (talk) 11:43, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prasurampur[edit]

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

With just a mention in some census results, there’s no evidence that this is notable under WP:NGEO Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep -- It definitely meets NGEO as it had status as a legally recognised populated place for almost half a century. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep As a rule we take any palce counted in a census as sufficiently notable. Mangoe (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, Mangoe: it’s not a legally recognised place as village development committees have been abolished. And WP:NGEO specifically excludes census tracts. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the evidence that this is a census tract; I'm don't think that the notion even applies here. And while this is a principle which I personally find a bit dubious, it has as a rule been held that notability doesn't go away just because (for instance) some level of governmental structure has been abolished. Mangoe (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, I think you misunderstand what notability is. Notability is simply about the question of whether there are enough independent reliable sources covering the topic such that we can write a decent article on the subject without failing WP:V. We presume notability on the basis that some topics, based on a particular important attribute, are quite certain to have such sources somewhere even if we can't find them right now. In this case, a village development committee used to be one of around 4000 local administrative units that made up the country. For the time that the system was active, everything was recorded under this geographic/administrative structure. It's easy to presume that there would be multiple sources profiling each VDC, census and survey data for decades, information on what geographical features lay within and around, political events and election data on multiple local elections, newsworthy social, cultural, health, etc. events and so on. That's why we should keep the article, so that if and when more people who have access to both the offline sources and the internet drop by wikipedia and find a stub, they could contribute to building it even if they wouldn't otherwise have had the time or the inclination to find out why the article didn't exist or if they could create one. And because, in this case like in some others, we can't ever be a complete encyclopedia without covering topics like this. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usedtobecool - I do understand notability, honestly, but at the time there was only one very weak source in the article and I couldn’t find any other WP:RS to add myself - I nominated because I found it odd that a recognised place would have zero articles on it. Glad that others have now been found. Whilst I agree with you, we can’t keep every single unsourced article in the hope that someone might drop by and add a source on a whim! But I acknowledge I’m still relatively new to this and finding my feet. PS Twinkle has been so useful, thanks for the tip! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not meant to just cover present things. If it was ever a recognized level of governmental structure we will always have an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND its a census location so is clearly notable and just because it no longer exists doesn't mean its not notable per WP:NTEMP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vingroup. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinpearl[edit]

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

No evidence at all of notability above and beyond its constituent companies. Anything that is found to be notable and sourced could be moved to either the zip wires page or the owners page Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NCOMPANY. Can SOFTDELETE and redirect to Vingroup. Also, Vinpearl Cable Car needs attention, not sure if it is notable as a tourist attraction (but this kind of content can at least try to be saved at WikiVoyage). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vingroup. The Banner talk 23:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vingroup. gidonb (talk) 00:42, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier High School (Alaska)[edit]

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

Other than one broken link to a primary source, this article contains no sources. I cannot find any evidence through an online search that this school is notable at all. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The reason you can't "find any evidence through an online search" is because the school has been defunct for over a decade. The article's creation is emblematic of several problems with Wikipedia in general: 1) The POV advanced by the schools WikiProject that anything with "High School" in its name is automatically notable while anything not containing "High School" in its name is automatically non-notable; 2) That any entity aside from for-profit companies are deserving of separate standards of notability than for-profit companies; 3) That anything currently existing when the article was created and which generally passes the first two criteria is acceptable. You have plenty of work to do in regards to weeding out content created under number three. The school was basically a footnote in the 30+-year history of Top Class, a weekly classified-ad publication in Fairbanks, which probably couldn't qualify as notable on its own. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely with you @RadioKAOS: - there are a lot of articles that simply wouldn’t make AfC these days and aren’t being updated, so are just left inaccurate! Please come join here if you’re able to help with the backlog. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:39, 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 no consensus. KaisaL (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N. Sreedharan[edit]

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

The sources which are presented in the article is insufficient to pass the article WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page as I believe this qualifies under WP:NPOL. He was one of the pioneers of CPI(M) in the state of Kerala. He was the chief of the the party in two districts. N. S. Memorial Institute of Medical Sciences, one of the major hospitals in southern Kerala, was built in his remembrance. Aravind V R (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Former CPI(M) Secretariat Member is notable position...?failed to meet WP:GNG,WP:NPOL-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 15:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can you please describe what WP:BEFORE was done for this nomination? I find him mentioned in K. Ramachandran Nair's Trade Union History of Kerala. He was a member of the CPM state secretariat (highest body of CPM at state level). Memorial article about him 30 years after his death. Has a hospital named after him... How is this failing GNG? Furthermore, current content is not a determinant for the validity of deletion; notability of the *subject* is the crucial criteria. AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:28, 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 00:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abishe (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Abishe: what precisely per the nom? Content is not a criteron for deletion, notability of subject is (see WP:NNC). AfD is not clean up.--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Goldsztajn. Notably, this individual died well before WWW and his name (often given just as 'N.S.') is difficult to google. But prominent individual whose memory is celebrated in Kerala, see more examples such as https://www.mathrubhumi.com/kollam/news/ochira-1.4538615 --Soman (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn and Soman she can be prominent, famous etc. But, she was not creative professional. So, these are not enough for passing her WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Nazmus Shakib - Current content is not a determinant for deletion; AfD is not cleanup. Refuting the case that GNG is not met with the examples provided requires more than WP:ASSERTION. Please also respond to my question outlining what BEFORE processes were undertaken. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn Thanks for your comment. Though the article of Deshabhimani can be a good point but we should not take it in this case. Because, it is called as the mouthpiece of CPI (M) (Sreedharan's party). And as per our notability criteria we should not keep article of a person for naming after a hospital, school etc.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deshabhimani is the third- or fourth-largest newspaper in Kerala. It is not a revelation that newspapers are connected to political parties; Mathrubhumi (2nd largest Malayali paper) is aligned with JD(S). The point regarding the memoralisation is that he is regarded as notable by a significant, widely read newspaper in Kerala; the paper is not memoralising every CPM cadre in general 30 years after their death. The point about the naming of the hospital is not that it indicates notability per se, but rather overall this fact contributes to notability. There are a set of conditions which taken together allow us to determine notability. An essential intent of GNG is to ensure that commercial, promotional and advertorial materials do not litter Wikipedia; it is not to exclude notable people who lack digital signatures. In the case of historical figures who predate the internet and who lived in primarily non-English speaking environments it is simply commonsense that establishing notability can be done through a variety of factors. There is still no description of what BEFORE was done for this nomination. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on this link where CPM directly claimed that it is their newspaper. My commonsense says that we should not use this newspaper for passing WP:GNG in this article. As per our notbility criteria becoming famous, prominent etc are not enough for passing WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Goldsztajn please provide some sources so that we can understand that the person passes our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate on the character of Deshabhimani, but like many sources with explicit ideological connections, they can still can be utilised in appropriate ways. This is community consensus. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn: I suggest it to be deleted as per nom mainly concerned about failing to pass WP:GNG. Have I cleared your doubt regarding this? Abishe (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is only the repetition of assertion. It does not really indicate you have engaged with the issues raised.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In short words media like Deshabhimani should not be used for passing WP:GNG in this case. Even, the article clearly did not pass our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. It appears that there are enough sources of significance currently cited in the article to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the claims made in the article can be verified from reliable sources then it is definitely a keep. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some media reports on the subject but this really doesn't make him notable as per Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. GargAvinash (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all except Suja Juice (no consensus}. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Church[edit]

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

Reason Ohc ^¡digame! 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Along with related articles Tabjuice and Suja Juice, this seems to be a walled garden of spam for two products of doubtful notability and a person who fronts the products. The biography is thinly-sourced, and relies mainly on self-referenced links (or links for a company whose WP article was deleted as spam on 22 October 2011); a GSearch for the products themselves seem to lead to product placement blog articles that recommend the products in glowing terms; citations for Suja Juice seems to suggest that its notability may be limited to the stake taken in it by the Coca Cola Company. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Suja Juice, ~~possibly merge the other two articles with it~~. While the Suja Juice article does seem to have some WP:POV issues, I have found multiple news articles about the company with sigcov in independent reliable sources. I added those articles to the Suja Juice talk page. Bait30 ^Talk? 23:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing my merge !vote to neutral for Tabjuice and Jeff Church as Adamant1 raised the valid point that they're only tangentially connected. Bait30 ^Talk? 19:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey Bait30 are you sure that the articles on Suja Juice are good? You say you've found multiple sigcov in independent reliable sources, but is the content "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND? Which articles have you in mind that meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HighKing: The sources I'm referring to are in the article's talk page. I was aware of WP:ORGIND when I found those articles. In my opinion those articles pass WP:ORGIND. Bait30 ^Talk? 21:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jeff Church and Tabjuice. Keep Suja Juice article. As it now seems to have a few more reliable sources. One the other articles and why I'm not going with merging them to the Suja Juice article, none of the other founders of Suja Juice have their own sections or mentions in the article. So doing so for Jeff Church would give him undue weight. With Tabjuice, there doesn't seem to be any connection between the two companies except that they where both founded by Jeff Church. Which isn't notable on it's own in the Suja Juice article. Otherwise, it's just notability by association or inherited. Especially considering Tabjuice isn't notable on it's own. Really, the same goes for Jeff Church. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suja Juice; passes WP:GNG. DeleteTabjuice and Jeff Church; fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note to the discussion closer that HighKing's comment above was added after the AfD was relisted. Bait30 ^Talk? 21:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All three look like non-notable spam. Dorama285 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are inferior and promotional. Abhi88iisc (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Corporate spam. Not a single source has been produced or can be found that meets the criteria for establishing notability for either Suja Juice or Tabjuice. The Forbes "article" is a simple listing/summary of the company with no attributed author. The other sources are entirely based on press releases or other announcements. Topics both fail WP:ORGIND. I don't believe the Jeff Church article meets our guidelines for notability either and should also be deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:49, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption of guilt[edit]

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

Violation of WP:SYNTHESIS, a collection of true facts arranged in a novel and unsourced way, along with a few books that happen to have similar names. As pointed out by RFinlay72 on the talk page, this article is really "list of unfair things that have happened", which if named as such would obviously be removed as irreparably POV. Just redirect the article title to Presumption of innocence, but there isn't any content in the article worth merging over to it, hence going to AFD (+ talk page making clear a bold redirect would be controversial, there are some defenders of this article). On the off chance there is anything of value to be saved, it can be discussed as a section in the "Presumption of innocence" article anyway.

Pinging talk page contributors: @EEng, Crawiki, RFinlay72, and ElectroChip123:. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, at the very least, unsalvageable WP:TNT. See my comments on the article talk page but the rest of the talk page as well, where the obvious rampant SYNTH has been complained about for ages. To be fair, here's what the article looked like when I made those comments, and some of the worst stuff has been cut since then, but it's still a bunch of random stuff, just less of it. The whole list at ==Typology== is simply ridiculous. And how on earth Jonathan Schell could be worked in as a source is completely beyond me. My god, wherever you look it's just ghastly.
It's like a road accident -- I can't look away. OK, one more example then I'll stop, I promise:

Between 1947 and 1956, many US citizens were accused of being communist agents or sympathisers and had their careers ruined during the era of McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare. The McCarthyites never proved any of it in court.

Really? That's encyclopedic content? (And BTW, there really were communist agents and sympathizers in the 50s, and such stuff was proven in court. But the level of sophistication on display in the crafting of this article being quite low, I suppose I should rush to clarify that I'm by no means expressing approval of McCarthy, his enablers, or their tactics.) E Eng 21:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nb, The article creator is attempting to canvas support to oppose deletion.Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That canvassing is very helpful, as it provided bread crumbs to two other absurd grab-bags of random OR and SYNTH that also need deletion or surgery with machetes: Miscarriage_of_justice and Victim_blaming. Looking further, in fact, there's a handy list at [1] of what are mostly college-like essays on various subjects, which should be either deleted or cut down substantially. Start with Political_midlife_crisis and you'll see what I mean. Another favorite of mine is Speaking_truth_to_power, in which we find this:

Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov are among those who suffered for speaking out against the USSR. In 1936, Japanese finance minister Takahashi Korekiyo was assassinated after suggesting that Japan could not afford its planned military buildup. Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi Germany, and Martin Luther King in the US, were people who lost their lives for speaking truth to power. The former world heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali was jailed in the 1960s for refusing to be drafted to the Vietnam war, saying; 'No Vietcong ever called me nigger...I have no quarrel with the Vietnamese people.'

It's preposterous. Wikipedia is not a host for someone's personal reflections on heroism and injustice. E Eng 10:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A random selection of possible injustices, with oodles of SYNTH, OR and personal PoV. In some cases it is pretty dubious as to whether there was any presumptions of guilt involved (Salman Rushdie's fatwa?) - rather than a wholly different notion of unpardonable offence. That 'presumptions of guilt' occur from time to time, as a result of hysteria/whatever, is pretty indisputable, but whether there is any unifying concept to be written about, rather than simply a failure of 'due process'/proper public and press caution - is dubious IMO. Pincrete (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --if a reader of this comment has a sense of irony, the reader might recall that AfD is one place where presumption of guilt often gets its own way--so it stands to reason that AfD contributors would be vulnerable to blindness to the merits of this article due to being stuck in the morass of presuming guilt as a way of life. I suppose the enlightened can just go to the Praduga bersalah article once this one is deleted. As for actual justification to keeping the article; I'll note it is well referenced, and that the ngram viewer results for this phrase show that it has been in regular use since the 18th century.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:GOOGLEHITS. E Eng 03:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An ngram graph is not the same as a list of hits. This website doesn't really have any policies about ngram viewer stats one way or another, unlike googlehits. As for the references, the bulk are serious and in depth enough to count for notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the argument for deletion, which is WP:TNT. No one's denying that "presumption of guilt" is a thing; the question is whether it's more of a thing than a list of unconnected random headlines (or, in one case, the title of a mystery novel) using the phrase to express ~(presumption of innocence). E Eng 04:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't unconnected; they are examples of presumed guilt such as in history, politics, or law, or examples of uses of the term presumption of guilt.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

One only has to google 'presumption of guilt' to become aware that a) POG is a notable topic, b) that POG is possibly on the increase internationally as authoritarian governments take power in eg turkey, Russia, Brazil, Hungary. c) that this is giving rise to concerns within the MSM. Just One example, someone goes to the police saying 'I was raped' and is immediately labeled a 'victim'. the proper term under POI would be 'complainant'.

comments made thus far, with my response...

"Just redirect this article to Presumption of innocence, but there isn't any content worth merging over to it, hence going to AFD (+ talk page making clear a bold redirect would be controversial, there are some defenders of this article). On the off chance there is anything of value to be saved, it can be discussed as a section in the "Presumption of innocence" article anyway." -As the definition section clearly states, POG is not the exact opposite of POI. POG prioritises 'speed and efficiency' whereas POI prioritises reliability and due process. Apples are not oranges, nor the opposite of oranges.

"'a collection of true facts arranged in a novel and unsourced way, along with a few books that happen to have similar names. As pointed out by RFinlay72 on the talk page, this article is really "list of unfair things that have happened",'" - what else is an encyclopedia, except collections of facts. "'Unsourced'" is completely untrue. Nowhere in the article does it say that 'things that happened' were 'unfair'. That is a product of this editor's imagination.

"'....which if named as such would obviously be removed as irreparably POV.'" - And if my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle. But alas, she doesn't, and isn't. Can we please stick to the facts, instead of dredging up hypotheticals and Wishful thinking?

"'The whole list at ==Typology== is simply ridiculous. And how on earth Jonathan Schell could be worked in as a source is completely beyond me. My god, wherever you look it's just ghastly.

It's like a road accident'" - sweeping generalisations here, an Appeal to emotion fallacy. in what way do pejorative words like 'ridiculous', ghastly' 'road accident' elevate the debate or shed any light at all?

"'Between 1947 and 1956, many US citizens were accused of being communist agents or sympathisers and had their careers ruined during the era of McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare. The McCarthyites never proved any of it in court.

Really? That's encyclopedic content?" - actually, yes, properly sourced.

"'(And BTW, there really were communist agents and sympathizers in the 50s, and such stuff was proven in court.'" -It would help your point if you had a source, at present you don't seem to.

"'A random selection of possible injustices, with oodles of SYNTH, OR and personal PoV.'" -No evidence or detail is provided for this sweeping statement. It's as if The prosecutor stood up and said, 'the defendant is guilty of random crimes, oodles of violations, why waste time debating the matter?'

"'bread crumbs to two other absurd grab-bags of random OR and SYNTH that also need deletion or surgery with machetes: Miscarriage_of_justice and Victim_blaming. Looking further, in fact, there's a handy list at [2] of what are mostly college-like essays on various subjects, which should be either deleted or cut down substantially. Start with Political_midlife_crisis and you'll see what I mean. Another favorite of mine is Speaking_truth_to_power, in which we find this:

Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov are among those who suffered for speaking out against the USSR. In 1936, Japanese finance minister Takahashi Korekiyo was assassinated after suggesting that Japan could not afford its planned military buildup. Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi Germany, and Martin Luther King in the US, were people who lost their lives for speaking truth to power. The former world heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali was jailed in the 1960s for refusing to be drafted to the Vietnam war, saying; 'No Vietcong ever called me nigger...I have no quarrel with the Vietnamese people.''"

-Why are these comments here? This is a complete Red herring or Association fallacy argument. The place for these observations is on the appropriate talk pages. They have no relevance at all to the subject under discussion, ie whether POG should delete or not. User talk: Crawiki

Crawiki: First off, you don't need such extensive quotes. If you respond to the substance of what is being said, that's as good or better than a point-by-point rebuttal. To try to move this in a productive direction - if you want to contribute to Wikipedia about the decline of the legal system in Brazil, Turkey, etc., that's great! There's plenty to be said there that can be sourced, in articles like Presidency of Jair Bolsonaro. What you've done in this particular article is not a useful contribution, however; it's a classic case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Please read the examples in that policy page on "synthesis of published materials" if you haven't already. You can hopefully agree with me that it's possibly to create an entirely true, entirely sourced article that is complete and utter nonsense. "Massachusetts governor Calvin Coolidge broke the Boston Police Strike of 1919, blaming it on communist agitators. In the wake of the First Red Scare of 1919, the Boston Red Sox traded Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees in January 1920. With Ruth gone, Coolidge also left Massachusetts and was inaugurated as vice president shortly afterward in March 1920." Every word of this is true, it can all be sourced individually, but the implication that there's any connection between these events is crazypants. You would need an actual, reliable source that claimed the Red Scare made the Red Sox trade away Ruth, or that it had any connection to Coolidge's governorship. I specifically said in the AfD nom that the novel arrangement of these facts in the Presumption of guilt article is unsourced, not the individual facts themselves. If there's some academic journal article out there on "Presumption of guilt" (and not a mere passing use of the phrase dug up by a Google Books search, which is the kind of reference the article currently uses), and the author makes the kind of connections the current Wikipedia article makes, then let's talk... although even then, what you likely have is material for a sourced section in the Presumption of innocence article. What's currently in the article is the equivalent of my ridiculous example above - true things individually that have been arranged to write an essay. SnowFire (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS. Also want to note here that the article creator has just added this article to the See Also sections of 12 not-very-relevant law-related articles. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-the best candidate for merger, should it be attempted, would be Burden of proof (law) rather than presumption of innocence. Discussions in academia or law regarding presumption of guilt sometimes use it as a subtopic of Burden of proof. Other times presumption of guilt is regarded as the opposite of presumption of innocence, but due to the broader (such as with civil cases) applications of burden of proof, there is more to write about when considering presumption of guilt a of burden of proof concept.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have any objection to either merge / redirect location. SnowFire (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and expand. The article discusses a number of different related concepts, and would be much clearer if it were properly expanded to cover them adequately. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lead and definition sections seem ok, but the rest is just the creator’s own ‘typology’, conclusions about “motivations” and presumed “examples”. Mccapra (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This does not rise to the level of WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I entirely agree with DGG that the article discusses a number of different concepts, although I'm not sure I buy how related they are. The thing is, we already have articles on these concepts like Cognitive bias or Blackstone's ratio or Salman Rushdie (whose case really has nothing whatsoever to do with this concept, mind...). What this article lacks are sources that suggest "Presumption of guilt" is a thing at all, or some reason to tie all these topics together. Take one of the more on-point references in the article: this op-ed. Well, it's filled with talking about the value of the presumption of innocence, but this again sounds like something for either the Presumption of innocence or Burden of proof article. Furthermore, it's even talking about just as a societal thing, while the earlier parts of the article talk about it as a legal matter. What exactly is the standard for inclusion when none of these sources have clear relevance? Or are direct citations of primary source content, like the UN Declaration of Human Rights? For this article to continue, it needs to have relevant references on some topic that is specifically "presumption of guilt", IMO. But maybe someone can explain what about the current references is so compelling as to be "keepable"? And what exactly the article should even be expanded with, considering the sourcing is so patchy as is? SnowFire (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, give it a severe pruning, and then expand it appropriately with high quality sources that discuss the concept as applied in international law, rather than in popular culture. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't believe such high quality sources exist, hence this AFD nomination. "Presumption of guilt" is just... not a thing (except in-so-far as it means "lack of a presumption of innocence", which can be covered elsewhere), so the sources will always be vaguely related at best. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability for "the principle" [my italics] is entirely lacking. Where is the evidence that there is any defined and specific principle that can support the opening statement that "Presumption of guilt is the principle that one is considered guilty unless proven innocent"? The opening statement is sourced solely to an online search for "presumption+of+guilt" within thefreedictionary.com, which gives no definition but redirects to the ancient legal concept of presumption of innocence for which we already have an article. In a legal case, any so-called presumption of guilt would simply amount to a reversal of the burden of proof for which we already have several articles covering specific meanings. It's not possible to create an overarching "principle" out of nothing simply by searching on the words of your proposed new article title. There really is nothing here apart from a list of unconnected injustices that an editor apparently wants to bring to greater prominence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to fix the inaccurate definition and added some of the sources available. James500 (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate this is a good faith effort - I'm still not sold that any of the "new" sources actually describe an encyclopedic topic, rather than simply be occurrences of these three words next to each other in running text. The fact that an entirely new definition is now in the lede should be an alarming sign for the topic's alleged encyclopedic nature. Again, by this kind of dredge-around-Google-Books standard, an article could be written on any set of three words - Fate of America, Presumption of justice, Denial of bail, etc. I agree with MichaelMaggs that there doesn't actually appear to be a topic here - if there was, there'd be law dictionary definitions, journal articles specifically on the topic "presumption of guilt" (not a passing reference), and so on. SnowFire (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is worth reading, too. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. I don't see a real topic here, instead I see a seemingly random (= someone used the Google search) collection of things that really aren't even connected to the "topic". Editors keep removing text from the page, I see Rushdie's fatwa was just removed, and I didn't understand the revelance of it either but I also don't see the relevance of a plea bargain or apocalypticism, collective guilt etc. -kyykaarme (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking the Wikipedia Reliable Sources search at the top of the AFD, I see things like this: [3]. Dream Focus 03:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a saucy headline. I'm not questioning "can these three words coexist next to each other somewhere in the English language;" they clearly do in that headline, but that's it. Do you see anything in the article itself that is Wikipedia-worthy? Maybe, but it'd be about "(lack of) presumption of innocence". From the article: "Importantly, the court resoundingly reaffirmed the central importance of the presumption of innocence." The article text never contains "presumption of guilt" or suggests PoG is a legal principle. And it's a rather abstruse, minor decision about court fees & refunds. SnowFire (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. I am satisfied that presumption of guilt is an encyclopedic topic that is not a synthesis, and that it satisfies GNG. The article is still in a less than perfect state, but it is improving and it can and should be fixed. James500 (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japan's Justice Minister tweeted that it's a person's duty to prove their innocence in a court of law with “If he’s clean as he says he is, then he should fairly and squarely prove his innocence in the court of law.” I think this is a notable article and should be kept.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems that the concept of "Guilty until proven innocent" did historically exist, as described here or here, also appears in Napoleonic Code and at least as an accusation with regard to law in certain countries [4]. So, it can be regarded as a separate subject and hence we can have the separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 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 merge to National Iranian Congress. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Iranian Students (founded 2009)[edit]

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

Fails to meet the criteria for general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and it has been written in a way to mask the lack of notability. The sources found on the internet speak about "Confederation of Iranian Students", refer to the defunct organization of the 1960s and 1970s. Pahlevun (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt appear to have an decent external references. Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to National Iranian Congress, the current name of the successor organization. The NIC has generated significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (e.g.:[5], [6], [7]) and passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wasn't properly transcluded for a month, so relisting for more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Risas Dental and Braces[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have been written in advertising manner. Abishe (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Next time you have someone try (and fail) at writing a completely mediocre WP:PROMO article for an American entity, don't make it look so transparent by having someone write the article as if they're from a Commonwealth nation. Fails on PROMO and GNG grounds for sure, and very obvious attempt at SEO. Nate • (chatter) 14:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most if not all sources are press release material. --MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article's claims that the company is "widely recognized" requires more than several non-notable business awards in its local area. Searches find nothing better than routine coverage of events by the firm. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:44, 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. Willing to email a copy if anyone wants to put this on the inevitable Bionicle wiki. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bionicle characters[edit]

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

Originally proposed for deletion with the rationale "56 kilobytes of nothing but in-universe plot information. Sourced only to the original franchise." Proposal for deletion contested with the comment "Not saying this deserves to be kept or deleted (I haven't really looked into it enough to make the assessment) but given the size and scope of this page I think if it's going to go, there should at least be an AFD discussion about it..." I still don't think we need an article consisting of nothing but 56 kilobytes of in-universe plot information. Delete. JIP | Talk 16:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it’s a WP:TNT situation at best - it’s a lengthy, 99% unsourced article that’s focused far too much on fictional, in-universe details. Stuff like this belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:ALLPLOT. Better off on FANDOM than Wikipedia, and fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly in-depth fan article. If there needs to be a character list, it should be a small, focused list in the main article. TTN (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Character lists are valid spinoff articles from the main article for the series. Dream Focus 17:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this gargantuan amount of fancruft should not be on Wikipedia, so it being a split is not a reason to keep. The article itself fails WP:PLOT and WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Dream Focus. In addition I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of trimming in this article. There are other good solutions to the problem raised by nom. gidonb (talk) 12:31, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Ericson[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG: Cannot find published secondary sources for any of his contributions to Linux kernel/distributions or any other facts. This article has existed since 2005 and most of that time had a "notability" banner. Now in 2020 the notability guideline is more universally understood, it's time to revisit this. -- intgr [talk] 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- intgr [talk] 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 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 speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANNA[edit]

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

fancruft, not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, improve this article. Why are you deleting this article, idiot? Why is this "fancruft"? What you mean, motherfucker? Kadae (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2040 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a place for gratuitous profanity. Please remain civil. JIP | Talk 16:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date, Arizona[edit]

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

Another isolated siding which is still in use. Searching reached new depths of false hits, so I could have missed something. Mangoe (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fort Date Creek is nearby and older topos show a place called "Date Creek" in addition to the creek itself, however "Date" seems to be nothing more than a railroad siding. As a sidenote, this seems to follow the peculiar railroad convention of using a single-word name (Date) even though all other local landmarks use the full name (Fort Date Creek, Date Creek Mountains, etc). –dlthewave ☎ 19:54, 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 redirect to Arizona Central Railroad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bear, Arizona[edit]

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

Another siding in the middle of nowhere, in this case at the north end of a fairly snaky bit of trackwork. It has been taken up, and there was some sort of trackside structure you can see a wall of in the GMaps picture, but no signs that there was ever any settlement here. Searching was extremely difficult but turned up nothing. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arizona Central Railroad, it was one of the few stations on that line and no one is going to find that article by searching for "Bear, Arizona".----Pontificalibus 15:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with the redirect; thanks for finding this. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - No sign of anything more than a railroad stop here, likely named after nearby Bear Canyon. –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - doesn't meet notability threshold on its own. Glendoremus (talk) 17:28, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Ahuja[edit]

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

Per WP:N, unless we think one nod for "35 under 35" rises to the level of noteworthiness above and beyond the typical entrepreneur. Comatmebro (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. The person has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources such as 2, 3, 5 and the page can be expanded using these references. Farhan (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE and likely sockpuppetry. MER-C 11:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam. The creator of this article was Farhan A. Shaikh, who commented above. MER-C 11:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Aruakpor[edit]

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

Insufficient significant coverage to be considered notable by WP:BIO. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Catholic bishops of dioceses are de facto notable for Wikipedia. Is this not the case for Anglicans? Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bishop of a major denomination. Per WP:BISHOPS. Sourcing appears scant but do we know if there are alternative spellings of his name? Suggest this should be tagged to get more eyes on it from appropriate wiki projects. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need an indepdent, 3rd party source. Presumed notability is to guide in suggesting what will have sourced, but we cannot use internal Church directories to substitute for actual 3rd party indepdent sources. The assumption of notability cannot overcome a total lack of reliable sourcing. the only people who are actually de facto notable that we only have to prove exist are elected members of national and first unit sub-national legisltures, members of governmental cabinets, and top level national judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a passing mention but considering this previous deletion discussion [8] I really do not see how this could end up closing anything but a force delete without us favoring some religious leaders over others. The sourcing related to Christensen was far more substantial than anything found on Aruakpor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources out there. See this [9] and this [10] This [11] has passing mention. Here [12] is another source. This [13] may also be a usable source. Here is another source [14] that mentions Aruakpor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also found four books that seem to mention him under his longer name but was frustrated by inability to search them to check out the references. I think there is more out there. I just haven't found it yet. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anglican bishops have always been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as a biship of a major denomination. Pity we do not yet have an article on his diocese. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper Binkley[edit]

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

Actress doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lack of third-party sources. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ENT PenulisHantu (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:HEY. On February 19 a number of sources were added to the page by IphisOfCrete (thank you, IphisOfCrete!), two of which—the Hollywood Reporter article and the New York Times article—describe the subject in relation to her work. Two other articles I found from reliable sources (https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-call-to-the-park-avenue-armory-1475793786 (Wall Street Journal) and https://ew.com/recap/good-wife-season-3-episode-9/ (Entertainment Weekly)) provide mere mentions, and there are various other mentions and discussions of the subject in less reliable sources, too, such as Broadway World. I think this makes a good cumulative case for meeting WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dflaw4, I've randomly checked your links and a lot of them just name drop her; she's not the subject of the articles. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk), that's correct; as I said, they are mere mentions. But, when taken with the sources already in the article as well as other, less reliable sources online, I think that WP:GNG is met. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time for input from other people
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 15:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:ENT, there is a lack of notable roles (even in notable shows) that she has done to warrant her own page. Per WP:GNG, while the subject has been mentioned by reputable sources, I do not believe that the coverage (as it stands) is "significant" enough to warrant an entire article about the subject. Right now, it's really only an extended imdb page. Only comment is that I do not have access to the WSJ article, so I can't say much about its content. – BriefEdits (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BriefEdits, the only line of the WSJ that mentions her is "The evening brought out guests like actress Ruth Wilson (with Mr. Ashford), Lynn Wyatt, Jamee and Peter Gregory, Agnes Gund, Bill and Karen Ackman, Chris Mack, Bettina Zilkha, Ziel and Helene Feldman, ICM agent Jennifer Joel and her sister Haley Joel Satnick, Pepper Binkley and Marshall Sebring, Ken Kuchin and Tyler Morgan, Armory President Rebecca Robertson and new artistic director Pierre Audi."

I can copy and paste the entire article if you want since I have access but I think that might be a copyvio for Wikipedia.--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tyw7 Oh no, it's fine. But yeah, it seems like the WSJ article is about the same as the other sources then. – BriefEdits (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BriefEdits, it's true that the Wall Street Journal article is just a mere mention, but the two articles I referred to above which are in the page itself provide more substantial coverage. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dflaw4, only https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/a-night-armor-996155 and https://theweek.com/articles/792623/freezing-there-web-series-about-egg-freezing-didnt-know-needed mention Binkley more than once. I also found https://bust.com/entertainment/195716-its-freezing-out-there-web-series-review.html and https://sheroars.princeton.edu/speaker/pepper-binkley-01/ during research, but they're not great sources. But having spent some much time editing minor actors' wikipedia pages, I do feel like after review, this does pass the bare minimum of WP:GNG and is WP:POTENTIAL due to her being on Fifteen (TV series) for 26 episodes (according to IMDB) and might show up in a magazine review somewhere. For now, I'm changing my vote to Weak Keep, even if the ancillary sources are mostly trivial. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BriefEdits, I'll certainly keep my eyes peeled for better sources, too. Thanks for your reply, much appreciated! Dflaw4 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BriefEdits, well WP:ITEXISTS isn't really a strong reason to keep. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Dflaw4. Article is now good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 06:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the close, ongoing discusion, and disagreement over whether the non-ancillary source coverage is sufficient for notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now updated the page and added the two references I provided above. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't previously comment on WP:NACTOR because it was not nominated as an issue (only WP:GNG was), but, in addition to my previous arguments for "Keeping" this article, I would add the following: the subject was a series regular for season 4 of Fifteen and she starred in the 2009 film, Asylum Seekers, both of which appear to be notable productions; and she also had what seems to be a significant role in the 2010 film, Stone, and has starred in a couple of other films of low-to-moderate notability. I believe there is enough here to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BACSAP[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: While this fails WP:NORG on it's own, it does have value in the context of it's parent institute's article. Therefore I propose this should be merged into the Bahria University article instead, maybe as a subsection of the Societies section. UzEE 17:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source is from BASCAP itself, which proves that it isn't significant. Analog Horror, (Speak) 00:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing out there except the BACSAP website and a couple LinkedIn profiles who claim membership. Doesn't meet notability by any stretch. Glendoremus (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - did not find anything significant to establish notability. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:06, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Mehta[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the citations used here are primary sources which don't establish her notability that why she deserves Wikipedia page. Brihaspati (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As you said, every single citation is to a primary source except for 1. A quick Google search for her shows that there are no other sources except for those from universities, and practically all of them are from the same time except for one, which doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED. There is no significant coverage, so it fails WP:GNG as well. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 15:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is evident: 2nd Indian woman to receive a Rhodes scholarship, first Indian Radcliff fellow, fellow of the APS ... easy pass of WP:ACADEMIC. UCS, please. AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about her that has been stated so far actually meets notability for academics. She is an early career academic who has not met any of our actual inclusion criteria for academics as of yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Johnpacklambert: How have you determined that Mehta is "an early career academic"? She completed her DPhil in 1986. Her 2007 fellow's citation at the APS reads: For being a pioneer in granular physics, and contributions to many and diverse areas in complex systems and nonlinear dynamics; for her efforts to help 'invisible scientists' in emergent countries become globally visible, with special reference to women in international science. NB ACADEMIC#3; this is an easy pass. Are you sure you have the right person? --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:Academic per Goldsztajn's findings. IphisOfCrete (talk) 22:04, 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 redirect to Golem#Tabletop and video games. Sandstein 09:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golem (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing that shows that the D&D golem is notable, although golems in general definitely are. Gamecruft that is mostly WP:PRIMARY sourced and FANDOM-level content. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. The D&D golem is only notable within game guides and there is no notability for an article of its own. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability. No need to retain content. TTN (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Research first before declaring "it's not notable" - A quick "Google Books" search found at least one non-game-genre reference to the use of golems in Dungeons and Dragons. Granted, it's not WP:SIGCOV but if a quick search can find that, a more detailed search can probably find what is needed. I'll post to the article talk page shortly. As a compromise, redirect to something like List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters so the page history isn't lost. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, there is nothing, basically nothing in the article that proves notability, and I could not find anything significant with a WP:BEFORE. But if you have actually found substantial evidence of notability please do share, as long as it's not WP:TRIVIAL and/or WP:PRIMARY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without spending much time, I have found 3 non-primary, albeit trivial mentions in books. At least one is from an academic press. I'll keep looking. As I mentioned on the article talk page, if there are many - dozens or hundreds - of independent writers bothering to mention this and the authors are not all "fan boys/girls at heart" it makes you wonder why they would bother to mention it if the topic were not notable. Three does not three dozen make, I will keep looking. This AFD is new. Hopefully others who are following the relevant "lists of discussions" at the top of this AFD will also do some research. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is hard to prove that no sources exist, I did search, and here is the problem: the term Golem exists and is notable, and has a page, and it is very hard to find any mention of golems that speak specifically of D&D golems that are not part of the game system - because, after all, that is the distinguishing feature of this page. What makes this page different from Golem is that this page is not about the concept of a golem, or golems in literature in general. Instead, this is a page about the golem as described in the D&D gameguide. As per Zxcvbnm, if you can find sources, that is great, but it seems unlikely. --Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft pending further research. BD2412 T 05:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with this as an alternative to "delete" if research stalls out before this is closed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Golems are certainly notable, as the story is one of the most well-known in Jewish folklore, and they have been used in a multitude of different types of fiction for a long time. That said, there is absolutely nothing indicating why the D&D specific version of the creature is notable enough to either sustain its own article, or bother to be mentioned in another. Additionally, as there is no content in this article that is not just in-universe game information, there is nothing that needs to be preserved or merged elsewhere. As mentioned above, the only coverage in non-game books and non-game guides is trivial. Rorshacma (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Golem#Tabletop and video games in case no more substantial sources are found - the entry there is still lacking, compared to what secondary and primary sources can deliver. Move to draft is also fine with me.

Can anyone say if the sources by Picard D. Laurent are legitimate? Are they associated/independent?

Daranios (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I copy the secondary sources additionally found so far from Talk:Golem (Dungeons & Dragons)#Sources found during AFD for ease of reference and to show that more secondary sources indeed exist. Daranios (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwin, Byron; Dee, Ivan (2004). Golems Among Us: How a Jewish Legend Can Help Us Navigate the Biotech Century. p. 44. Golems also play a role in such popular children's games as Pokemon and Dungeons and Dragons.

Comment: Mere mention. p. 44 snippet

Baer, Elizabeth (2012). he Golem Redux: From Prague to Post-Holocaust Fiction. Wayne State University Press. p. 4. Golem is also the name of a computer in Israel, a folk-punk klezmer band, a figure in the role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons, and an opera by John Casken.

Comment: Mere mention. p. 4

Brockman, Norbert (2011). Encyclopedia of Sacred Places, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 393. Today, the golem figures in online gaming such as Dungeons and Dragons.

Comment: Mere mention. ABC-CLIO is an academic publisher. p. 393

The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters has a short bit about the creative origin of the D&D flesh golem on p. 193.

Those really are all extremely trivial mentions. They in no way constitute significant coverage. They simply affirm what is already established by the very name of the creature, lacking actual commentary. TTN (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a bunch of single-sentence mentions, which in most cases are just composed of examples of things named "Golem", are not signifigant coverage. The fact that there are a bunch of extremely trivial mentions does not constitute actual notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Golem#Tabletop_and_video_games. Right now there is nothing to merge, but sources noted just above would be sufficient to create a sentence, or maybe even a short paragraph in the general golem article linked popculture section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Golem per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 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 redirect to Ovcharka. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ovtcharka[edit]

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

Fails GNG & NOTDIC, completely unsourced article about a translation of a Russian word. Cavalryman (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ovcharka, which disambiguates the four dog breeds that may be called by this name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that, I would support this redirect. Cavalryman (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs has been notified of this discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Justlettersandnumbers. We certainly do not need article text like what is there presently, WP not being a Russian dictionary. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: this would be more fitting in Wikitionary. As Cavalryman said, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially about the translation of a Russian word. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 09:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JLAN, WP:NOTDIC. William Harristalk 20:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone. JIP | Talk 21:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed new strategy - given that Овчарка (Ovcharka - there is no "t" in it) means shepherd dog in Russian, let us delete this article and rename the others as shepherds under WP:USEENGLISH. Calling Justlettersandnumbers, Cavalryman, SMcCandlish, Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ, JIP for consideration. William Harristalk 20:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be against that, I think. Even if those four articles are renamed, which would be a separate discussion (I haven't even looked to see what titles they are at now), we'd still need redirects from the 'Ovcharka' names, and still need the Ovcharka dab page to help people to distinguish them. There seem to be quite enough uses of the spelling with the "t" to make it a reasonable search term. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All English language sources I have seen discussing the various breeds use the anglicised Russian name not Shepherd, although spelling various greatly (Ovtcharka, Ovcharka, Owtcharka & Owtscharka). Given this I think we should maintain the status quo on the breed names. Cavalryman (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, the WP:COMMONNAME thing can often override USEENGLISH. It's not enough that an English translation exists, it actually needs to be in dominant use in our sources. As for the other spellings, I'll make more redirects. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Update: Done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:50, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Abboud[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and clearly not meeting with WP:NPOV. The content has been written in advertising format and the article has bare URLs which are prone to link rot. The author has also failed to mention the nationality of the person. Abishe (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and certainly fails WP:ENTERTAINER. With respect to the existing sources, the Thrive Global article is community-written, the MTV Lebanon coverage appears to be a video segment featuring Abboud (as opposed to about him) (I say "appears to be" as I am unable to access the source), Medium is not a reliable source, the Stepfeed article is written by a contributor, Beforeitsnews is not a reliable source, and the harvard.edu references appear to be dead links to a portfolio hosted on exed.canvas.harvard.edu—thus these sources are ineligible for establishing notability. I consider the An-Nahar article [15] eligible for consideration under GNG. Even giving the article the benefit of doubt that the al-akhbar source is reliable, the section about Abboud is only a single paragraph among a list of food-bloggers—still not enough for GNG. userdude 01:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 17:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of meeting WP:GNG. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:48, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Nevagi[edit]

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

Not a notable person to have an article at mainspace. Taking a controversial murder case won't make him notable. There are no significant coverage or important works to mention. The references are WP:ROUTINE. Fails WP:PERSON and WP:GNG. - The9Man | (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also to mention this article is created by WP:SOCK. - The9Man | (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The9Man | (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The9Man | (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of meeting WP:GNG. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:48, 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 merge to Joko Widodo#President of Indonesia. There's reasonable agreement here that we can't just leave it in it's current state. Even among the people arguing to keep, there's consensus that this needs a substantial amount of cleanup; whether that's WP:TNT or simply removal of poorly-sourced material, and WP:POV / WP:BLP violations is unclear.

One of the oddities of this discussion is the frequent suggestion that this be merged to the currently non-existant Presidency of Joko Widodo. It's not clear to me what that's supposed to mean. How is that different from a rename? I do observe that creating a new article from scratch and merging would (in theory) impose the discipline that everything that's merged be examined.

The other oft-mentioned potential merge target is Joko Widodo#President of Indonesia. That's not the majority viewpoint, but it does have the advantage of most directly addressing the complaint that this is a WP:POVFORK of that article.

A minority are arguing for straight-up deletion, and many of those agree that a merge would be a reasonable alternative.

Between all these possibilities, I don't see any perfect solution. I'm going with the merge back into the parent article. I strongly urge whoever does the merge to only take the best material, and rigorously enforce policies such as WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:POV. Once that merge is completed, editors can continue to discuss at Talk:Joko Widodo if it's worth splitting this back out into a separate article, and if so, what title would be most compliant with WP:POVNAMING. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Joko Widodo[edit]

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

The entire article is written entirely off NPOV and contains several straight up conspiracy theories (just see the navbox and the section titles should already give enough of an impression), and it is frankly too long for a proper improvement without straight up nuking the article. A better way would be a deletion to prevent a massive BLP violation and then remake from scratch. An unrelated sidenote: it is also horribly written, in terms of grammar and structure. Juxlos (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, original creator of the article, Qzxv5, have not ever accepted NPOV requests and his edit history has been entirely one of either dumping NPOV-violating edits, reverting reversions, and huge talk page rants about the reversions. In my opinion, he is not editing in good faith. Juxlos (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juxlos: That's not all that relevant to the notability of the article, which is what we're deciding here. You should report him to WP:ANB if he is ignoring warnings. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Criticism of a head of state is a perfectly valid reason for an article and highly notable, and not a BLP violation if it's inline with valid sources. Plenty of sources in English media.[16][17][18][19][20] We have similar articles on other world leaders. Obviously the article needs to be free from conspiracy theories and only based on criticism from reliable sources, including respected human rights groups, and so the neutrality of the article should be addressed. The article is extremely detailed and extensive, so I don't see the point of WP:TNT. Just remove any unsubstantiated content. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia:, Criticism of Donald Trump is a redirect and this AfD isn't a WP:N AfD, this isa BLP WP:TNT AfD. Article in current stage is a giant BLP violation. Juxlos (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juxlos: I addressed your proposal of TNT and why I felt it was unnecessary. Yes, and, likewise Criticism of George Bush is a redirect to Public image of George W. Bush, which is just criticism of George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Criticism of Vladimir Putin's government redirects to Russia under Vladimir Putin which is 90 percent criticism of Vladimir Putin. I don't see how any of these are giant BLP violation if these criticisms are substantiated. Just remove anything unsubstantiated. What is the problem with that? It seems you have a real problem with the creator and are taking it out on the article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am using the editor's history to substantiate the NPOV - the contributions section clearly does not imply a neutral editor in the first place and this article is a clear case of a POVFORK. And as I mentioned, the article is so big that a slow removal will be a huge effort that's better invested in redoing the entire thing. Juxlos (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFORK specifically states that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork" and the edit is properly also abudantly sourced. Qzxv5 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT delete as how it is constructed now (both in grammar and style). An entire article dedicated to listing every single point of negativity is against WP:NPOV, in particular as described in WP:CRITS. This kind of stuff is more appropriately and neutrally addressed in an article titled Presidency of Joko Widodo. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+redirect to Joko Widodo#President of Indonesia, but sifted for notability. Only high-impact debates should be included, and not every troll-generated consipracy (much of the current article is composed the latter stuff). Agree with HyperGaruda, as it stands, it's a blown-up POV-fork of a currently non-existent Presidency of Joko Widodo. –Austronesier (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Create Presidency of Joko Widodo article, and Merge only the WP:RS criticism to the respective section.--Darwinek (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+redirect to Joko Widodo#President of Indonesia or just flat-out delete; the current article is a shameful violation of NPOV and reliable sourcing. Doesn't seem like we're taking policy on BLP seriously here. And I know some will call this off topic, but it is horribly written. Glendoremus (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the wordy problem, Remind that Wikipedia is never perfect, but anyone can contribute to make it so (I am not a native, anyway...)

Keep, for the rule sake, NPOV problem not relevant for article deletion.

Let me expound my rationale here, I choose to create the criticism page to collect various criticism made in public since I have vast references and sources from media covering the controvesial policies and things related to him and in Indonesian Wikipedia, there is a section (Joko_Widodo#Kontroversi) about it (yet none of them on the English Wikipedia) .

I think "this person" could be very controversial in the country and deserve to be criticized as it happened when hundreds of protesters oppose his re-election and hundreds thousands of college and high school students march on the roads across the nation when resist his decision on KPK Law, also there are more than 600 ballout officials dead during the 2019 election still in obscured, moreover, almost a dozen of souls are already giving up their souls while protesting him during the May 2019 post-election result anouncement riot and Criminal Code bill demonstration in Sulawesi, yet most of popular Western mainstream media say few (or nothing) about this crisis...(I mean, do the world think that nothing seriously horrible has been happening in Indonesia? or just unaware of it...)

Futhermore, consider when reading the "criticism" pages Criticism of Akira Kurosawa, Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Criticism of Mother Teresa or Criticism of Facebook, Criticism of Islam and even Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of Jesus which are overwhelmingly "dominated by negative views" about each of them, yet the articles are preserved for years (or even decade!). If these pages are going to be deleted also, I wouldn't object that Criticism of Joko Widodo will be deleted. Fairness is crucially needed here...

Because AfD policy based on policy-based arguments, these passages should be considered: Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), and "non-notable" Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Do a NPOV problem is an reasonable excuse to delete an article, so what's "NPOV noticeboard" for? or Should I give a long lecture of rules below? ..Accusations of vanity and other motives should be avoided and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not "a very strong reason" for deletion either. WP:AFD

POV problems do not require deletion; Template:Before_Afd
:Before listing an article for deletion...For "problems that do not require deletion", including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, uncontested redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias...Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content. Qzxv5 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment alone suffices to demonstrate the bias of the author. Juxlos (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with Juxlos, I don't think we shouldn't leave anything at the implicit level. So let's adress each point: 1. WP is not the place for WP:righting great wrongs. Your obvious personal dissatisfaction with current events in Indonesia is a bad start for creating objectivity. 2. WP:other stuff may exist, but that's not relevant for the current AfD. The notability of the topic itself must justify a standalone article. 3. Violation of NPOV is not "a very strong reason" for deletion, but on a case-by-case basis still can be. 4. Finally, do not conflate documentation of bias with promotion of bias. The goal of documentation of bias, critcism etc. here in WP is to provide full coverage about notable topics based on reliable sources: it's not to provide an unfiltered forum for any form of bias. –Austronesier (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all reliably sourced content to Presidency of Joko Widodo where this article should redirect. b uidhe 23:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not clean-up and NPOV problems is not a reason for deletion. On a side note, WP:NPOV recommends titling articles without the word criticism and instead using the words perception or reception in order to keep a more neutral point of view within an article. For those with NPOV concerns, I recommend retitling the article Perception of Joko Widodo and bringing in some other points of view into the article to balance it out. That's a discussion for the article's talk page though and not at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article requires more citations and the tone is not neutral. I am leaning towards a merge to Presidency of Joko Widodo. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The9Man | (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Joko Widodo, or else Delete as a WP:POVFORK. Also per WP:CRIT. Jimbo Wales is quoted on that page with this comment. The page author's argument that there is no consensus as to whether a criticism article is always a POVFORK is not relevant in this case. This case clearly is a POVFORK as it is not a balanced article. Does not adhere to WP:NPOV. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment The article in its current form does not only list third-party criticism as documented in reliable sources, but also uses combined data from reliable sources to express criticism, in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. The article appears superficially well-sourced, but sources are to a great deal misused to prop up the personal opinion expressed by the page creator by means of this article. I have started to deconstruct the article by removing every material that does not represent third-party criticism documented in reliable sources. –Austronesier (talk) 16:06, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nishant Choubey[edit]

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

Not a notable person and lacks significant coverage. Therefor not meeting the requirements to have an article at mainspace. The references given are WP:ROUTINE or interviews. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG - The9Man | (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable chef.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG .Now there thousands of chefs not clear how he is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:02, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Spectrum Next[edit]

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

The ZX Spectrum Next is a kickstarter-funded modern clone of the ZX Spectrum. Only around 3000 units have been produced with the potential for a second production run. As such, it is an extremely niche product. The only citations that can be used to support this topic are for the release of the machine itself, and the specifications for the machine (which are primary sources, from their own website).

There is no current "significant coverage" and it is extremely unlikely that mainstream sources will be covering the machine again in the future, so any claims that the page will be expanded upon are not credible without reliance on self-promotion.

In short, there is no reason why this machine requires a dedicated page when all the possible information about it is included in the ZX Spectrum page. MrMajors (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and not convinced it should be on the ZX Spectrum#Official clones page either, where again it only cites first-party sources, and as such reads a bit like a WP:PROMO; I can't find any evidence of coverage in reliable, third-party sources on Google. YorkshireLad (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable for its own article. Already included at ZX Spectrum article so no need to consider a merge. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are few short news on The Register, which may be used in the main ZX Spectrum article instead of the company webpage. Other than that, not broad enough coverage to justify stand-alone article. As no valuable information is lost and redirect may be created after deletion, I´m leaning to delete (or delete and redirect). Note even extremely niche products may get significant coverage in reliable sources. Pavlor (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is way too hard to understand and there are only primary sources. Analog Horror, (Speak) 17:20, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Sussman's Money Message[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2011. The radio station it has broadcast on is now defunct since 2010. I cannot find any independent secondary sources to indicate notability and it is very unlikely that it will become notable in the future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely on the Air America schedule, but only because Mr. Sussman paid them to do so; brokered money management shows which are opaque excuses to promote mutual fund and money management services are a dime a dozen on American Saturday morning radio, but this really had nothing different outside some different advice to pander to the AA audience (this source goes with 'socially responsible investing') rather than the usual message you hear on conservative stations. Nate • (chatter) 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nate. I barely found any source about this defunct radio show. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family Island[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A quick search on the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up very little results. It WP:EXISTS, but that's about it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 14:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 14:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as there is a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Most, if not all of the sources seem unreliable even. I've searched for sources in various languages (even Russian) for it but failed sadly. Just another farming mobile game that is released daily on various app stores. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Games Finder[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Sources provided are predominantly WP:PRIMARY. A quick search on the custom Google search engine brings up zero results. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any IRS that jumped out at me ... Happy to be corrected with some good example to the contrary. Aoziwe (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page should be kept given notability (high Alexa rank (top 40k) history, connections with other Wikipedia articles such as MobyGames, TobiWan and 10+ other articles that mentioned Games Finder on Wikipedia and now link directly to this page now that it has been created. I will explore adding additional sources to the page to support this. videogameaddiction (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having perused the requirements of WP:WEB, the site surely fails. I agree that there are no IRS; and none are likely to be found. I had hoped I could add some IRS in an attempt to save the page but like Aoziwe I could not fine 1 IRS via Google, nor could I find any references (let alone IRS) in a ProQuest database search of Aust and NZ newspapers (noting that Games Finder is a web centric site so the absence of any references in mainstream newspapers does not necessarily equate to a fail of WP:WEB). It is simply not notable.If videogameaddiction can add some IRS then the page could conceivable qualify, but I am skeptical because of the type of references videogameaddiction has already cited (for example "Games Finder has also been featured on Reuters discussing Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order." cites a Press Release, within which is this very short, non-substantial passing mention: “It has elements of Tomb Raider like environmental puzzles, a God of War style emotional story design and even Batman inspired fluid combat,” Samuel Franklin, founder of gaming recommendation website Games Finder said."). Cabrils (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the feedback and attempts to find IRS. I am going to include the notable mentions I have found from my research and if there is positive feedback around these I will add them to the article to improve notability. There is potential notability from detailed articles where Games Finder has been directly interviewed on social/political topics of climate change and loot boxes from video games, press releases/game releases with Games Finder being quoted as a review score, evidence of contribution to speedrunning community and a scholar article on virtual economies that quotes Games Finder as a reference source (there was also a 2nd scholar article talking about ontology of video games but could not locate a primary source that would be useful as a Wikipedia reference): https://www.speedrun.com/dk2/individual_levels, https://learn.g2.com/best-programming-languages-for-games, https://www.opploans.com/blog/are-loot-boxes-going-to-be-banned/, https://www.sparefoot.com/self-storage/blog/22479-game-console-storage/, https://www.euronews.com/living/2020/02/17/is-playing-video-games-making-climate-change-worse, https://apps.apple.com/us/app/tiny-defense-2/id1219626039, https://www.buysellads.com/buy/detail/262277, https://apps.apple.com/us/app/doodlefense-doodle-defense/id854265225, https://www.gamasutra.com/view/pressreleases/356117/Heading_over_to_its_10th_Event_this_year_War_Clicks_is_celebrating_the_year_with_its_Santas_Revenge_Event.php, https://www.canalrcn.com/todogamers/novedades/articulo-nota/estos-portales-te-ensenan-todo-lo-que-quisiste-saber-sobre-videojuegos-779, http://www.poptechjam.com/2014/01/, https://www.producthunt.com/posts/walkr, https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hoflr43&div=15&id=&page= (Scholar article which discusses Games Finder as a reference). This is in addition to the notability of being a Wikipedia reference on 10+ pages prior to page creation. videogameaddiction (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- videogameaddiction Please do add all notable mentions, as that could help considerably. Please note that "positive mentions" are not a criteria for notability: in summary, a subject should have "significant coverage" in multiple "reliable" "sources" "independent of the subject" (see WP:NOTE). Media releases like the Reuters Press Release mentioned above generally do not qualify (see WP:PRSOURCE). Further, I am not aware that the notability criteria is satisfied by the existence of cross links to the subject page within Wikipedia, for the obvious reason that links to the subject page could be sprinkled through numerous existing pages even though each sprinkle may well fail WP:NOTE. However, as I said I might not be aware of the precedent so I would appreciate seeing any support there is for this argument.Cabrils (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support Cabrils I have added all the relevant notable mentions I could find. This includes both scholar articles thanks to Google Scholar delivering the original sources. I agree with you regarding WP:PRSOURCE so I have removed the sentence under history that talked about the 2019 redesign with a press release source as I could not verify this elsewhere (other than fiddling with wayback machine). However, I'm not seeing the Reuters example as a press release as it is independent of the subject website and doesn't seem to be typical press release content but this could be removed without significantly impacting the page now that there are more sources. I've dug a bit deeper into the cross links matter and unable to find anything supporting either a for or against view but the existence of these links did led to the this article creation while I was cleaning up references/dead links on various video game topics. videogameaddiction (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe I am missing something but, one, about 1/3 of the article is now about the founder, not the article subject, so this does not count to notability, and two, some, if not all, of the statements about reviews by the subject are at best OR or PRIMARY, and at worst just irrelevant, so there goes the biggest paragraph in the article as well. Aoziwe (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry videogameaddiction, but so far all these sources are just passing mentions of Games Finder. Because a scholar makes use of Games Finder as a source, doesn't mean Game Finder is somehow notable for Wikipedia. We need independent, significant coverage about Games Finder specifically to have an article on it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries appreciate everyone's time I had a good crack at it. videogameaddiction (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, "A" for effort...but no dice...;-). Cabrils (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Media Group[edit]

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

No, not the British one. No claim of significance/notability (fails GNG/WP:NCOMPANY), no good redirect target unless we want to do so for Sky Plus (but that article also has notability issues) and there is also SKY Radio, so toss a coin which one is better? Estononian wiki article is about as bad. BEFORE does not show anything but few mentions in passing/press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the biggest radio broadcasters in Estonia. The Banner talk 10:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Even being the biggest Foo-type company in Fooland is no criteria of notability. And simply being one of the biggest is stretching that non-criteria even further.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is regarded as one of the biggest private radio groups in Estonia. Apparently one of the biggest two with nation-wide coverage. It is covered in a few (apparently) reliable sources as such ([21], [22], [23], [24]). It is hard for me to judge reliability of press coverage in Estonian language, but it is covered on Eesti Rahvusringhääling ([25]), Delovõje Vedomosti ([26]), Äripäev ([27]), Postimees ([28] and [29]). Maybe it would make sense to merge Sky Plus and SKY Radio to Sky Media Group? --MarioGom (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the sources you present is that without analysis they are just WP:GOOGLEHITS, and my translation of a sample in my BEFORE, some of which you cite, suggests they are at a level of press releases or their rewrites. But I am happy to hear from anyone who stumbles upon an in-depth, independent coverage. Rescuing this is always preferable to deletion. So, anyone found good sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in-depth, but these may be useful too: Radio in Estonia: Meager but Enduring, radio history (in Estonian, has first air date for some stations), Venekeelsed massiteabevahendid nüüdisajal (encyclopedic article). --MarioGom (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia. Reason: The page is tagged with the WikiProject and members could help assessing sources. MarioGom (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its notability is a nobrainer for any Estonian, everybody knows the company. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We do need sources though. Estonian ones will do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I changed all the sources, you can put back any of the ones I removed if necessary. + I added years when the current stations were opened. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The existing sources are enough to demonstrate notability for the purposes of WP:NEXIST. The SAGE International Encyclopedia says that Sky is "among the biggest radio broadcasters". The Baltic Times says that "many of the private stations are owned by Sky Media Group." It is without doubt that Estonian sources exist, which satisfies NEXIST. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Also, here's some sources in Estonian, as requested.
- "What is the state of the art of radio entertainment today? What is its future?" from Eesti Ekspress -- an interview with Sky Media content manager Priit Varet
- "Sky Media celebrated its 20th birthday in galactic size" from Elu24.Postimees
- "Rumors have a base! Sky Plus' longtime program director is retiring" from Elu24.Postimees

-- Toughpigs (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Toughpigs and MarioGom. I suggest the links posted here should be added to the page. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:12, 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 keep. KaisaL (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Council on the Ageing[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Local branch of a not necessarily notable organisation. Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure how much WP:BEFORE was done here. Sorry, but I was probably a bit obtuse at Talk:Council on the Ageing. Another simple example, if you google ("Council on the Ageing" .gov.au), then all of the .gov.au site hits are secondary, ie, the content has had review by people not associated with the subject here. Yes, many of the hits in the gross search result are trivial, but there are a solid number that are not. There is also the TROVE search I gave at "Talk:Council on the Ageing". Again the bulk of that search result is not IRS about the subject, but there are a solid number that are. I am of the view that each state branch (note state, not a "local"), probably does not warrant its own article, but as a multibranch national entity it seems to me to be quite notable. Aoziwe (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the naming should be Council of the Ageing(NSW) or something similar as there is a national level body, and COTA bodies in every state. On Trove I found a significant volume sources including some that indicate the COTA is a publisher, research organisation, registered charity, and a primary source of knowledge. It meets WP:GNG the organisation and its work is well documented. Gnan garra 12:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - organisations in an state of australia such as these are long standing and notable... JarrahTree 12:44, 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 09:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newstrike Capital[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria. Newstrike Capital was founded in 2000 but it wasn't until 2008 that it acquired Aurea Mining Inc. that it became active in mining. It conducted several exploration and evaluation studies in the Guerrero Gold Belt until 2015 when Newstrike Capital was acquired by Timmins Gold Corp. Unable to find sufficient sources to justify an article on Newstrike Capital. -maclean (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A primary-sourced WP:SPA article on a company. Searches find routine listings, brief coverage regarding a project, and then mentions of the firm's acquisition by another company (which has no article). Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:52, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cooke[edit]

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

Not notable. Vanity page. The original author of the page appears to be the person. Many of the citations appear to be the authors own website, or works. See comment below Slobberdan (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and a possible WP:COI is no reason for deletion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a vanity page WP:COI masking as a biography of a 'video game developer, writer and musician', which does not meet WP:AUTHOR for creative works and research would not fall under WP:ACADEMIC because the work is not widely cited. Generally...there are sites better dedicated to listing credits on video games and simply working on one, or for a specific company is not notable in itself. The same could be said for being part of a demoscene, publishing fanzines or simply running a campaign for proposed hardware drop-ins that never made it to market. The journalism credits include running fanzines, winning a competition and writing web articles - these are not notable in themselves, nor are widely cited. The filmmaking credits are not notable - one of the two films links to the subjects own site and the other, a vimeo upload. Neither film has any notoriety and actually appear to be amateur level work that is not at all well known. The video game section lists places of employment - simply working for companies is not a notable thing, it's best left to LinkedIn to record and again, game credits MobyGames. The research noted - are ultimately links citing two separate 'blog' posts, this not widely cited and are not notable or otherwise scholarly. Had they been scholarly, they would quality under WP:ACADEMIC. The claim to be a musician may be valid but potentially from nothing than the standpoint of a pastime - the article does not speak to this topic nor underlines any notoriety in this field. The screenwriting credit links to the subjects own blog post mentioning the upload of a screenplay to a website (more or less entering a competition) and being the highest rated entry for the month of February 2008, but beyond that there is no mention of the screenplay anywhere on the internet, not even on the website it was uploaded to - it lacks any notoriety and labeling it as 'unproduced' does not mean it had that kind of credibility or potential, it's a little misleading actually (being a wannabee is not a notable thing). The most relevant item in this article is a journalism credit that appears to be for a gaming magazine for a short period of time, however this does not hold up against peer work - people with a notoriety from similar work in larger publications (such as Simon Goodwin) do not have Wikipedia articles, nor probably would. In light of the fact that the creator of and a major contributor of this article appears to be the subject (see talk pages), this appears to be a vanity page. The subject clearly has done many great things, both professionally and hobby-wise so I do not wish to discredit, but these are simply not at a level notability or notoriety to warrant a biographical article on Wikipedia, nor are they Encyclopedic in nature. I would suggest people voting for/against deletion consider whether this article would exist, had the subject not personally stubbed it out. Slobberdan (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion and AfD is the place to rid Wikipedia of being used for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Whether a redirect is needed, and from which title, can be discussed separately. Sandstein 09:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KANM (radio station)[edit]

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

No licensed broadcast facility and has never had one; fails WP:BCAST. Raymie (t • c) 05:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 05:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 05:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not independently notable. Fails WP:BCAST.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas A&M University: Since it started in 1972, it wasn't indicated that it used to broadcast on terrestrial radio. Based from the article, it is likely the oldest surviving cable FM station in the country to have never transitioned to licensed over-the-air operation. It came from a primary source. Therefore, it fails WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I would agree with that solution, but there is another, actually licensed, radio station that holds the call sign KANM, so "(radio station)" is an incomplete disambiguation. Its former title KANM (college radio) would be acceptable as a redirect to Texas A&M University#Media.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason I AFDed this first. There are six other articles in this same boat where Netoholic moved them and immediately created a problem. Most of them have similar notability concerns. Tdl1060, I put the list on your talk page. Raymie (t • c) 08:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based from what I've researched, the call letters were never used in any of the stations in the College Station market. And with due respect, Netoholic shouldn't have moved the page into its current title in the first place since a station from Grants is currently using that callsign. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymie and Superastig: Not sure why my name is being tagged in here like I'm being scolded. The disambiguator "(college radio)" was not supported by WP:NCBC. I moved the few pages that used it to open title destinations that use "(radio station)". If there are later found to be other radio stations that share those callsigns, then WP:JUSTFIXIT as necessary. I have no opinion on deletion/redirection/other disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 10:26, 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) 17:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuggo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim in evidence here is the number of views he got on a social media platform, which is not an article-securing notability claim -- but the sourcing is not solid enough to get him over WP:GNG: five of the seven sources here are blogs, student media or his own social networking, and one source is not covering him in the context of music, but in the context of a crime that just makes him a WP:BLP1E, as it was not significant enough to permanently clinch his notability as a criminal in lieu of having to get him over NMUSIC as a musician. There's only one source here (one album review in a Canadian music magazine) that has anything to do with establishing his notability as a musician, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has been noticed at Vice for all the wrong reasons, and has a brief album review at Exclaim. Most of his media coverage is for his criminal charges, and even that is scant (WP:1E), and the article's claim that his song was a "phenomenon" is an exaggeration, to put it lightly. Otherwise he is in self-promotional mode. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as this is the third AfD for this rapper and someone keeps recreating the article with little improvement over its previous forms, some SALT protection may be warranted as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, WP:CRIMINAL, and salt. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Analog Horror, (Speak) 01:07, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K-Slick[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim on offer here is the number of views he has on a social media platform, which as always is not an instant notability clincher in and of itself -- but none of the sources here are getting him over WP:GNG, consisting entirely of blogs and self-published PR with not even one reliable or notability-supporting source shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non-notable Canadian rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:05, 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natra (musician)[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, with no reliably sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim in evidence here is the number of views he has on YouTube, which is not a notability claim in and of itself -- and right across the board, the "sources" are non-notability supporting stuff like YouTube, Spotify, blogs and student media, with not a shred of real reliable source coverage in real media being shown at all. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he must have a claim of notability that passes NMUSIC, and he must have reliable source coverage in media to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google search found nothing that would help the subject meet RS or NMUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bredcrum[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim in evidence is the number of views he has on YouTube, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of any notability-supporting media coverage about him -- but three of the five footnotes are directly to his own self-published YouTube content, a fourth is an unreliable source syndicated TV show whose affiliate stations tend to run it at 3 o'clock in the morning as paid programming, and a fifth is a 13-word blurbette in a magazine listicle, which is not substantive enough to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the best source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing aside from the subject's social media and Kikstarter campaign that discusses the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Noe[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The most substantive notability claims here are having placed songs in TV shows (but not actually naming any specific shows, just channels that they aired on) and being a session musician on other people's work -- and all of this is "referenced" entirely to his own self-published website about himself and lists of credits in non-notability-making directories like AllMusic and Discogs.com. The only genuine reliable sources anywhere in the entire article, further, are not about him, but just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about a nightclub event he helped to organize. But a person isn't notable just because he gets mentioned in coverage of other things; he becomes notable when he's the subject of the coverage. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If true, his biggest claim to notability seems to be some pretty minor production work on some pretty minor albums by notable artists. Caro7200 (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dandrea, Arizona[edit]

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

Actually the "Dandrea Ranch", according to older topo maps, and everything else except GNIS agrees. A geocaching site claims that it burned in a 1972 wildfire; later we got the Dandrea Trail which unsurprisingly goes to the site, and which is likely the source of the GNIS entry. Presently there appears to be a house and barn just north of the site which appear to be being maintained (at least, they have new roofs) but one homestead does not notability make. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ranch is not a notable populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the USGS classifies this as a locale, not a populated place. I don't see anything that makes it notable. Glendoremus (talk) 04:01, 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. Sandstein 09:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual interoperability[edit]

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

I gave this a fair bit of thought but, in the end, I don't think this is suitable as a Wikipedia article. It only very unclearly explains what the topic is even about. After reading it through several times I painfully and cautiously reached the conclusion that it's saying that systems designed to work on the same or similar kinds of data are better at it than systems not designed to work together. Then you can divide how good systems are at cooperation into arbitrary levels and give them fancy names, and this article apparently is mostly about the highest and best level.

All of this is not that interesting or useful a revelation, and it's bogged down in a swamp of pompo-verbosity. I suspect the author of the article, and of the conference proceedings it's based on, is deliberately disguising the content's banality with confusing fancy words. Just look at the ridiculous clipart "figure".

I think this should be deleted because the point of an encyclopedia article is to impart information to the reader. This article doesn't do that, and cannot ever do that because the sources it's based on are also buzzword laden nonsense. Reyk _YO! 06:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The prose in the article is clear enough. Anyone who has dealt with large scale software development, such as the mentioned military simulations, or semantic web technology, or component object models, or the internet, etc., has had to think carefully about how the parts of the whole fit together and the appropriate level of sharing among those parts. It's not a canonical model, but LCIM example seems fairly typical of systems thinking among people in this field. The nom is welcome to dislike the subject matter, but the article is a reasonable summary of the conceptual interoperability field and is a long way from complete bollocks in the Wikipedia sense. The article does have some problems--it leans too heavily on primary Tork sources, it could use more development of non-LCIM approaches, and promotion could be toned down. The subject looks notable, however, and the issues are a matter of editing, not deletion. Hence, keep. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 09:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article in its current state is incomprehensible - at least for me. TNT rewrite would help there. No opinion on notability yet. Pavlor (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inclined to agree with Mark viking on notability, but cannot agree that the prose is clear enough. The first paragraph of the lead is OK, but the second paragraph is opaque and doesn't immediately appear to be speaking to the article subject at all, let alone explaining what it is. Looks like the article used to be called composability or similar, explaining that. Still, deletion is not for cleanup unless this is really bad enough for WP:TNT. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TNT. TNT is an essay, not policy, but I believe this is a case for it. There is a concept behind this page that is probably notable, so some article on this subject could exist. Yet the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform and educate readers, regardless of background. This article does not do that. A reader coming to this without an existing background in the subject will, like the nom., feel this is incomprehensible. A reader with the background will read the papers this article is based on (and it is heavily based on those papers). Any article on the subject must describe clearly what the subject is about and why it is important, and this article just does not do that. It needs blowing up, and if an editor then feels there is anything to tell on the subject to a general audience, they can start over. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Douglas Adams "Telephone sanitation operatives." Call it the Golgafrinchan solution. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C. P. John[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Failed to pass WP:POLITICIAN Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 18:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The article fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. My understanding of the consensus is that, absent significant coverage, officials of political parties of this size, like this subject, are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence whatsoever of any WP:BEFORE carried out, prominent political figure in Kerala, subject has held numerous notable positions, 2IC of large national student organisation, extensive writing, frequently quoted in national press over the last 20+ years. [30] [31] [32] [33]. Clearly major content issues, but AfD is not cleanup.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs a cleanup, but notability can easily be established. CP John is a known personality in Kerala politics, leader of a party, see interview here for example, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/ldf-govts-priorities-skewed-says-cp-john/article26094746.ece , 'former member of State Planning Board' (https://www.cppr.in/centre-for-comparative-studies/kerala-politicians-miffed-with-budget-say-it-is-unrealistic-and-favouring-corporates-the-news-minute-february-2-2018), http://www.keralaarchitecturefestival.com/news_more.aspx?id=NDE1&year=2019 --Soman (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 07:17, 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 02:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As not notable and failing WP:NPOL. In the interest of taking steps to ensure that systemic bias of sources is not a weighing factor I looked at this. "First", since it is already listed at AFD, I looked at the references. This immediately involved assuming some good faith because the first reference requires paying to read it so I marked it as such. The second reference is a dead link, and the third appears to be a self-reference. The last reference shows the names and pictures of 14 men and 1 woman. Being the sixth day of a second relisting, this is my take from the visual of the images as I didn't look if that is politically correct for any gender identity. What I didn't see was "C. P. John" so I scanned the page for "Cheruvathoor Poulose John" that I didn't see. This means a ^{[failed verification]} would be appropriate.

Of the three sources I had one "possible" so I looked for sources. Before I go into the "Before", I would like to mention this. The criteria is not as hard-line as made out to be by some. WP:BEFORE (D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability, #1) states: The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. #2 states: If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. There are two easy ways to have a discussion: A)- assume good faith, be civil and ask if in doubt, B)- roll up the sleeves and do battle. It is stated as fact above, "No evidence whatsoever of any WP:BEFORE carried out", but when I performed the search as per above ("C. P. John"), that is the subject title and anyone can argue six days a week and twice on Sunday but when the dust settles, it still satisfies #2 of "WP:BEFORE" above. I found this article, one titled Communist Marxist Party (John), Twitter, facebook, and economictimes.indiatimes.com, that didn't produce anything significant, so I backed out and regrouped. I went a step further and searched "Cheruvathoor Poulose John". My point is: please assume good faith and if there are doubts ask before pulling out the guns and grenades, or jumping to the other ASSume.

Cheruvathoor Poulose John:

Sources found. In this I found some mentioning like the telegraphindia.com (I saw listed above), but my goal was geared to spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, or reliable and substantive as well as to examine sources to ensure there is not just refbombing.

"What I found: The lead states he is a writer and the body includes, "He has continued to publish widely on the socio-economic issues facing Kerala". This is not backed up by reliable sourcing, has weasel wording (publish widely), and I didn't find any sources to back this up. I did find sources concerning a single book the subject authored, CMP general secretary CP John's biography of Rosa Luxemburg launched. This does not pass the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR.

The party John co-founded, the Communist Marxist Party (CMP), and became the General Secretary of, would seem to be what would advance notability. I became confused when I read the source Can Kerala campus politics be freed from stranglehold of parties.... I assumed this article was about a national party, maybe something regional, but, unless someone has opposing evidence, is a campus or university political organization, a "splinter faction" of the CMP, the Communist Marxist Party Kerala State Committee that the subject led, that supposedly represents the Students Federation of India (SFI).

Conclusion: I just do not see notability for the subject. I do not find anything particularly notable about being a "Member of the Kerala State Planning Board", nothing relevant on being a writer, and founding or being the General Secretary of a splinter group of a school (college, university) does not seem to pass any notability criteria. Otr500 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maarifa College Sahiwal[edit]

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

Promotional, fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 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 02:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant sources in article or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and non-notable. Dorama285 (talk) 20:38, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 00:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts[edit]

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

Subject lacks notable and only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST there is RS available even if not in the article. Lightburst (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

update: I have begun improving the article and adding RS etc. Lightburst (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was created by a likely sockpuppet. If deleted, please salt as they will try to recreate. (If Lightburst improves the article to justify a keep, then obviously I'm okay with that.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Name change The actual name has a different spelling of the word "Gifts". So if this article is kept we will need a page move to the title: S.W Randall Toyes & Giftes Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I boldy renamed - the missing "." after the W was typo from the original creator; the "and" is more common and official than "&"; the spelling of "toyes" and "giftes" is a recent style (ironically). For most of the shop's existence it was "toys and gifts" (which yields new search results), but since the website is using the stylized I didn't change the spelling. -- GreenC 13:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Notable enough. A Pittsburgh landmark and a really neat store that I would like to visit. "Pittsburgh's Oldest Toy Store Will Make You Feel Like A Kid Again". onlyinyourstate.com. Retrieved March 5, 2020. Not the article it was when proposed for deletion. Now meets WP:HEY; Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the bright and constructive side, this AFD by User:Meatsgains got the article to vastly improve to where it is now. And proving the worth of WP:ARS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonably expanded with reliable sources. Cards84664 19:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It seems like most of the claim to notability thus far has to do with local sources and the claim that it's Pittsburgh's oldest toy store, the significance of which is rather undercut by it dating back only to 1970. Regardless, there's enough coverage that I'm on the edge. That folks are actively engaged with improving the article and finding more sources is reassuring enough to push me to the other side per WP:HEY, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the massive improvements made to this article. Dream Focus 03:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Woah! This article has improved tenfold. I will withdraw my nomination. Great work folks. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:44, 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.