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 13:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liri Seitllari[edit]

Liri Seitllari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Don't see evidence the subject passes WP:GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Failed to find any notable work to satisfy WP:AUTHOR or mentions to justify WP:GNG - The9Man | (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This is an WP:IAR non-admin closure, because the deletion tag on this article makes us look silly (if I may say so). It is the author's most famous work and there is extensive secondary literature which may be used to expand the article. There are even numerous podcast episodes discussing it. Notability is not at issue here, and AfD is not a cleanup process. Outriggr (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I and Thou[edit]

I and Thou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is incomprehensible and is not based on reliable sources. ${\displaystyle {\texttt {adamant))}$^{(talk/contribs)} 23:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but might be happy to consider draftify. First port of call for this one was German Wikipedia, which has this article with the better title IMHO. That makes the case that this is one of Buber's best known and most important writings, and it appears to provide some additional sources, although in fact it is just one more, and that mostly about Buber, not the book. Undeterred I then looked on Google scholar and found plenty. The first link is to the book itself, with a preface calling it a classic. Ok, well that is marketing hyper perhaps, but then the second link is indisputably good.[1], because it is a paper by someone else revisiting the book, which demonstrates its notability. The third ref is also good[2] being a book that discusses Buber's, and so it goes on for page after page.[3]. Over 22,000 hits and a lot of them for this book. Then I tried the search on Ich und Du, and found a further 17,600 hits, again very many of them being for this book. It looks notable. Also the description is not incomprehensible although it could do with work. So... the subject is notable and the page should exist. The only question is whether the page is good enough as it stands. Despite the existence of many sources, the article writer has put none in. Also the lead does not really tell us anything - not even why the book is notable, and the description clearly lacks clarity. It has been tagged for a long time and no one has improved it. Draftify is therefore definitely worth considering, although I weakly favour keep. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is not particularly easy to understand, nor is it well-sourced. But the underlying topic is a clearly notable book. There are entire books about the philosophy described in Martin Buber's I and Thou. See Martin Buber's Ontology: An Analysis of I and Thou by Robert E. Wood; Martin Buber's I and Thou: Practicing Living Dialogue by Kenneth Paul Kramer with Mechthild Gawlick; Buber's Way to I and Thou by Rivka Horwitz. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't get past the nominator's statement that the article is incomprehensible. It is not, so the rationale offered is the thing that is incomprehensible here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It needs inline citations but there is notability. there are multiple research texts and books written about this book. From a cursory search: ^[1][2][3] And there is annother one cited in the article itself. These are very high quality sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. There is no deletion issue here. Outriggr (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - required reading in thousands of critical thinking, philosophy, and religion courses in colleges and seminaries. AfD is not for clean-up. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Langius[edit]

Jamie Langius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable political consultant. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I mean it has been tagged with a template questioning its notability for almost ten years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Political consultants are not automatically notable just because they exist — he has held no roles that confer an automatic pass of WP:NPOL, and neither of the two references (one of which is self-published by a directly affiliated entity, and the other of which is a book about somebody else) establish that he would get over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't really find good sources to support this. Delete per others. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appointed roles do not pass WP:NPOL. Seems to be a run of the mill state-level consultant. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet GNG.Cinadon36 17:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails notability. Ireneshih (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes This High (band)[edit]

Shoes This High (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:BAND LibStar (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Online sourcing is looking thin but they definitely made waves in Wellington. This profile by a music charitable trust (Not your usual random blog) called them: "Arguably the most memorable of all the early Wellington post-punk bands." And if you click read more there is reams of material. This source is republication of a 1981 review. However an interesting snippet at the bottom of that page says: "I’m making it available simply for the record, because there was so little written about such groups at the time." Wading through the other the google hits gets them plenty of passing mentions mostly in relation to Heyward. So weather this all adds up to significant coverage, I'm undecided on. Mattg82 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keepas the piece originally from a NZ paper The Evening Post is significant coverage and there are some reviews mentioned above and in the article, but more would help, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Changed to full keep explained later Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sourcing found, sources already present are trivial. And why do new article creators always append (band) at the end of article names even when they don't need to? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)}
• Delete, albeit there seems to be related sources (to some extent), but as much as I see/reckon: such references might not be good enough to keep/support a page in Wikipedia; and factually it needs more related sources to be kept. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found this source which heavily implies that coverage existed in the The Dominion Post (Wellington) and the Evening Post. Not sure about the second one but the Dominion is one of NZ's top newspapers. I also found [4], which looks decent. And also this blog post which was apparently originally published on Othermusic.com (no longer available online, so they reposed it on a blog). Not sure if Othermusic would count or not as I don't know much about the site, but it does have some nice coverage. I also found [5], which also mentions coverage in "In Touch Magazine". I think in general there is enough indication that reliable sources exist (and others exist that aren't available online) and that we have enough sources to be able to flesh out a non-stub article. I didn't even do that thorough of a search, so there's probably a lot I missed. (Disclaimer: I live in Wellington NZ but haven't heard of the band before.) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect there is plenty of coverage of this band from the era they were active, but it will be in print newspapers and magazines that aren't easily available online. Based on what we have currently I'd say we are firmly at 'borderline', but giving the benefit of the doubt we should probably keep this. As a local Wellingtonian I'm wary of objectivity though. LibStar, Mattg82, Atlantic306,TenPoundHammer and Ali Ahwazi; thoughts? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So far all you've found is implications of coverage, not the actual coverage. For all we know the "coverage" could've just been a name drop that got overinflated to make the band seem more notable, absent the actual coverage's presence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep changing to full keep. There is proven significant coverage in The Evening Post and in this magazine article here press read more for the full article and it is highly likely that there is content in the Dominican post so there is enough coverage for it to stay, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sejal Sharma[edit]

Sejal Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The person only worked in Dil Toh Happy Hai Ji in significant role. She worked in other production in minor roles. The article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Based on the standards for actors and actresses, I don't think the subject is notable enough. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Based on the reliable sources and WP:GNGACTOR, the article shouldn't be deleted. However, further readings may be more useful. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nom. 190.239.55.132 (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please login to your original account rather contributing via a naked IP.TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero starring roles, and no major awards. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. As Binksternet pointed out, the article qulifies for a G5 deletion as created by a block-evading editor. I have deleted it, restored the redirect that existed before the block-evading article creation, and protected the redirect. In view of comments below, this is probably what the outcome would have been had the discussion been left to run anyway. JBW (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YHLQMDLG[edit]

YHLQMDLG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod declined with addition of a single source. Album is supposed to be released this month but there is literally nothing out there. No confirmed tracklist, no confirmation that the singles are from this album, nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now. It’s a popular artist and it’ll likely be notable, but right now it’s WP:TOOSOON. It is a plausible search term though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. This should have been G5 speedy deletion because it represents block evasion by User:DB Dilan Brechero, who has been using Florida IPs and other socks to try and rewrite musical genres. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Or no consensus, but there have been no "delete"s since relevant sources were found. Sandstein 13:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Morrison (organist)[edit]

Alan Morrison (organist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources listed in the article, and I cannot find any notable independent sources that would indicate WP:GNG. There are lots of listings pages, press releases and biographies, but nothing independent. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I struggled to find sources that establish him enough to pass GNG or WP:MUSICIAN. Missvain (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article lacks any indepdent sources, let alone ones that are reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, No coverage to satisfy WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I found a couple of possible sources: 1 and 2, but not a huge amount of coverage by way of reviews. Pinging Sesquialtera II and DGG to see if they have more information, just in case. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these Bearian - as they are both simply concert listings, wouldn’t these come under WP:ROUTINE? Asking not to be awkward but because I want to build my own knowledge on policy, I see you on a lot of these AfD discussions and respect your opinion! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep. Head of the organ department at a famous music school (Curtis), but that's not necessarily defiitive. . Whar we need to do what we would normally do, which is look for reviews of his works. His website lists 2, without specifics of just when they were published (1) "CLEVELAND "ORGANIST PRODUCES A JOYFUL PERFORMANCE" - "....a rising young virtuoso of flawless technique and refined taste.... Playing most of his repertoire from memory, he communicated a sense of pleasure that lifted the music beyond the notes." The Plain Dealer" and (2) " "....Alan Morrison knows something about igniting audience passions. Without hesitation and throughout, Morrison's playing is consummate and dazzling...." - Fanfare from Fanfare (magazine). DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

refs at [6] - but the orginal source needs to be added also. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG - do you have access to these quotes and can include them as independent secondary sources? Currently the article has no independent sources at all which we need to find if the page should stay. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - changed !vote and hat tip to DGG. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as reliable sources reviews have been identified and now need to be tracked to source and added to the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, Bearian, Atlantic306 - but at the moment I cannot find these original sources, only the publicity quotes taken and placed onto a primary source. Can we really accept notability based simply on these primary sources? Thanks for your help on this. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There are multiple oher reviews available also: they are listed, with some of them linked, and some links working, at [7]; I found this page by searching in Google for Alan Morrison organ, which is not a particularly subtle or complicated method, though it seems to have not been used by the nominator. Among the actual working links are [8], [9], I have not done a search in newspaper archives requiring paid access. For Fanfare, see [10] Actual access to the reviews requires a subscription. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG, Link 2 is new to me and is really helpful. Your sarcasm, however, isn’t helpful. Please WP:GOODFAITH in future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I shouldn't have directed it at you specifically, because incomplete prior searches are a common problem. Some of this might be because the full searches asked for by WP:BEFORE are impractically detailed. And I too sometimesassume that i sarch I did is sufficient and it turns out otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Marginal "keep". (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suthee Minchaiynunt[edit]

Suthee Minchaiynunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable businessman who seems to be related to a notable person but per WP:NOTINHERITED he is not notable by being related to a notable person. Also subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The proper spelling of the subject's surname is Meanchainun, and I've renamed the article accordingly. Try the following links instead. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment: Here's a press release from the Chinese embassy in Thailand describing the ambassador paying him a visit.[11] The ambassador thanked him for his over thirty years of work contributing to China–Thailand relations, and called him a founder, promoter and witness to the friendship between the two countries. He certainly does not seem like an insignificant figure according to this description, though I'm having trouble identifying online sources that corroborate it. There's also a sentence in the statement that suggests that it may be confusing him with his predecessor, who served ten terms as the Chamber of Commerce president. (He served two.) --Paul_012 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is a major contributor between China–Thailand relations. Also meets WP:ANYBIO, he received the Thailand's one of the highest civilian decorations "Knight Grand Cross (First Class)" of the Order of the Direkgunabhorn (source). 17:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idolmm (talk • contribs)

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 based on post-nomination expansion of the page. RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehus[edit]

Mehus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm personally expressing a neutral position (Note No longer neutral; see my !vote below) on this AfD, but out of curiousity, I stumbled upon this disambiguation page for my own surname. The lede of the disambiguation page contains useful information on how to correctly pronounce the last name, but it has only one bluelink to a Flemish painter named Livio Mehus from the 17th century. The redlink is to a model Laurelle Mehus, whose AfD closed as "delete." So my question is as follows, should we:

• Keep this disambiguation page, noting the potential of Belle Mehus Auditorium and other potential future notable people named Mehus. Also, Mehus, Norway may be notable as a place;
• Delete without prejudice to re-creation in the future when warranted, and add a hatnote to Laurelle Mehus at Livio Mehus to encourage article creation;
• Retarget to List of villages in Nordland with ((R to list entry)), where Mehus is mentioned, and one or more hatnote(s) to Livio Mehus, Belle Mehus Auditorium, and Laurelle Mehus, the latter two to encourage article creation;
• Retarget to Livio Mehus with ((R from surname)), with one or more hatnotes to List of villages in Nordland, Livio Mehus, and Laurelle Mehus;
• Convert Mehus to geographic place stub article for Mehus, Norway, noting that several place lists link, incorrectly, to this dab page; or,
• Something else
  --Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Livio Mehus as ((R from surname)). Add a ((redirect)) hatnote on Livio Mehus to List of villages in Nordland (from which I've removed the useless link to the page under discussion).

Laurelle Mehus failed to survive AFD, and has a one-line cast list mention in Pretty Woman (not Pretty Women, as this page said until recently). Belle Mehus Auditorium is an orphan redlink. It seems to me most unlikely that an English version of no:Mehus would pass WP:NGEO; it isn't mentioned in Sortland, the next higher administrative division. Discounting all those, that reduces to a one-entry surname page, which should be a ((R from surname)) redirect.

Note to nom: relinked hatnotes are not permitted under WP:REDHAT. Narky Blert (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert, Thanks. Interesting, my nomination's retarget option was to retarget to Livio Mehus, but I changed it to the list entry thinking we should give precedence to where the Norwegian village is mentioned. Doug Mehus T·C 01:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article claims to be a stub but to my eyes it is a disambiguation page which only links to one extant article. Assuming that no article on Mehus, Norway is forthcoming, I would be guided by WP:G14 which says "If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect". Therefore, I concur with Narky Blert - Redirect to Livio Mehus with ((R from surname)) and add a hatnote to Livio Mehus to disambiguate the Norwegian village. --kingboyk (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Overtaken by events. --kingboyk (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingboyk, Yeah, I noticed that too when I tried to add the ((talk page of disambiguation page)) header to the talk page. It claims to be a list, but it really is a disambiguation page, so I added the disambiguation tag to it. I'm not opposed to redirecting to the 17th painter Livio Mehus as I'm officially neutral, but with Narky's find of no:Mehus on Norwegian Wikipedia, can we also have soft redirects on English Wikipedia to other Wikipedias, as we do with Wiktionary and Wikibooks? Could that be a possibility? This would encourage research to, potentially, create a stub-class article for the Mehus Norwegian village. Doug Mehus T·C 01:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the hatnote could point to Mehus, Norway which would be a ((R with possibilities)) to List of villages in Nordland? --kingboyk (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingboyk, Now that I think about it, a soft redirect of Mehus to no:Mehus isn't really helpful since, well, the target's not in English. We could potentially add a link in one of the columns at List of villages in Nordland to no:Mehus, though, I think. That certainly seems reasonable. Doug Mehus T·C 01:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it's in spirit a dab page but has sourced info about the surname so needs to be a surname page with a couple of "See also" links, as I've now linked the village and the auditorium. Perhaps technically we should have a dab page plus a surname page with just the info and the one entry, but that looks excessive. PamD 09:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  PamD, But the surname is named after the Norwegian village, so the Norwegian is a clear primary topic, I think, no? Nonetheless, I appreciate your improvements. I'm not opposed to keeping it as-is now. Would this be an WP:IAR/WP:COMMONSENSE keep then? Doug Mehus T·C 15:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  PamD, I tried to rescue the bare URL citation that was a dead link, to no avail. It's not in the Internet Archive. If this is kept, and right now, I'm leaning toward retargeting, it can be both a surname stub and a disambiguation page, per WP:IAR if needed. Doug Mehus T·C 15:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for @Kingboyk and Narky Blert: with the apparent WP:HEY undertaken by PamD and, in what may be a first, the nominator of this AfD, are either of you open to keeping this is as a first or second choice? And, if so, should it be (a) a surname stub, (b) a disambiguation page, or, since we have no rules and all, (c) both? That is, the consensus established here would provide for a non-precedent-setting tagging of both ((surname-stub)) and ((disambiguation)) (since we don't have enough to warrant two pages). If you're both amenable to either alternative, then I could with my nomination early. Doug Mehus T·C 15:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dmehus: If, as it appears, events have overtaken my previous input, you may consider my musings withdrawn. --kingboyk (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Kingboyk, thanks. Yeah, I'm not familiar with all of our requirements for surname stubs or disambiguation pages. We still only have one source, but, presumably, we can find another source that establishes its notability as a surname. Doug Mehus T·C 15:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hatnotes must not contain redlinks per WP:REDHAT. I've added a ((ill)) link to no:Mehus in List of villages in Nordland, which IMO is the cleanest way to make a cross-language link. Narky Blert (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The surname seems to have a range of origins, and it doesn't make sense for us to say that the Flemish painter had a Norwegian name. Just for interest, one "John de Mehus" crops up in various sources, as possibly earliest holder of a variety of surnames such as Muse, Mewsse or Mewis. The one source in this surname page was misquoted anyway: it says it means "middle house", while our article said it said "my house". Ouch. Have corrected it. PamD 16:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm beginning to lean back to the idea that we need a dab page with entries for the surname, the Norwegian village, and the Indian village (isn't exactly sourced in the article but the existence of its police station is, which seems good enough to be going on with). Then the surname page can say it's both a Flemish and a Norwegian/American surname, and cite the Oxford source about the latter. Two tiny pages, but I'm beginning to think it's the only way we can do it. For those who've suggested redirecting to the list of Norwegian villages, with a hatnote to navigate to our friend Livio the Flemsih painter, just think about it - it's a massive list, hatnotes would be at the top miles away from the mention of the village, and if that sort of hatnote became common the list would be top-heavy with a mega hatnote for all sorts of village names which had other meanings. No, please, no. PamD 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  PamD, I just added the reference to my house. Apologies for the original research as I was going from memory as a kid. I think it does, loosely translated, also mean my house. Nevertheless, we should go with what the source said. Doug Mehus T·C 16:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I added the Oxford Dictionary of American Family Names source, which is excellent, I think. I'm not sure why this source wasn't used in the first place over the now defunct "moosenames.com." Doug Mehus T·C 16:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If nothing else, we've got multiple experienced editors, and even an administrator, working on this long-neglected orphan page. So, that's great. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 16:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are about five or six entries on this page. That's too much for hatnotes. Smartyllama (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:HEY. --kingboyk (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am neutral no longer; I'm certain we can find one more source to replace the "citation needed" tags and, thus, meet any notability guidelines for a surname stub page, and per WP:HEY to PamD and me. So, I'm voting "keep" on my own nomination. If Narky Blert decides to change his !vote, I may withdraw this as "speedy keep," or just let it play out. Doug Mehus T·C 21:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but classify as ((surname)) not ((disambiguation)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Ruocco[edit]

Luisa Ruocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional and non-notable influencer, with the references being the customary PR.Created in an apparently deceptive manner as an irrelevant redirect, then changed to an article. It looks like an attempt to evade AfC. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: She certainly makes her way into a lot of fluff pieces that cite her opinions, but I'm not seeing anything of substance for notability purposes. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - G11 material if it wasn't already at AFD - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Business Insider, a clickbait website, contains a lot of PR junk. No other reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to BEXIMCO. Sandstein 13:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akash DTH[edit]

Akash DTH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn’t meet general notability guidelines. Sources are self-published and routine coverage. ~YahyA (✉) • 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to BEXIMCO per WP:BRANCH. The sources present in the article are not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Via google search in Bangla and English I have found news about its launching, promotional activities and sponsoring Bangabandhu Bangladesh Premier League. These are not enough for our notability guidelines.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Römer[edit]

Sabine Römer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional without any evidence for notability The awards are trivial -- and some are only nominations, not awards. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing adds up to notable here. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is actually passing coverage in the NY Times, and better coverage in The Evening Standard and a couple other decent publications. However all the coverage basically does, even when it is more than a paragraph, is talk about how great a piece from her limited edition line of bangle-hoop-rings would look paired with a pair of slacks by (insert name) designer. She is definitely known and written about, but the coverage is pretty much entirely promotional, in the product sense of the word.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak Keep Seems to meet People's WP:BASIC criteria for notability, since the coverage is from multiple reliable secondary sources. Some of the depth in the articles isn't substantial, but the amount of coverage should make up for it. From searching Google and the article, I've found she is mentioned at least 3 times in the New York Times [12] [13] [14], twice in Vogue [15] [16], at least in one book (Fashion Africa - Jacqueline Shaw) and has created jewelry for Nelson Mandela, Morgan Freeman, and Angelina Jolie[17] - so she is at least notable in her industry. Also, not all of the sources mention "limited edition lines" or are only promotional like stated above - but even then, it makes sense for a jeweler's work to be mentioned frequently in articles about a jeweler. I think the current article is mostly let down by neglect, poor research and a lack of weeding out bad sources - so it's hard for me to vote "Delete" until further research/editing is done. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Whisperjanes, here is the text that mentions Romer, taken from all the sources you mentioned. I am very curious about how you would get anything but a few scant basic facts out of these items:

  • New York Times 1: The London jeweler Sabine Roemer recently toned down a feminine rose gold ring by adding black diamonds for a male client and customized a round tanzanite ring for a woman “so the design is softer than sharp male lines,” she said.
  • New York Times 2:...and the jeweller Sabine Roemer paired a simple diamond star stud with three strands of stars in glittering sapphires and fluorites cascading from a monochrome moon. Ms. Roemer also created an agate cameo from two stones that were bought years apart. One is a portrait in green, the other a group of women rendered in blue, and detailing in green fluorites, topaz and amethysts to harmonize it all... “Asymmetric earrings, of course, should be matching or seem to be but there’s an element of the unexpected that I like,” Ms. Roemer said. “The look gives me the space to create within one piece.”
  • New York Times 3: "THE BUZZ “After 23 years in the business I still keep learning from Katerina’s amazing and knowledgeable posts,” said Sabine Roemer, goldsmith, jeweler and co-founder of Atelier Romy, based in London.”
  • Vogue 1: Master goldsmith Sabine Roemer had a busy London studio making a limited number of stand-out jewellery pieces for private clients, but… “Sabine just understands the way jewellery should be worn, placed, cared for and seen.”...“Something easy to wear, with no fuss, but looking like high jewellery. I think this was the most important part for us so we can wear it with our engagement rings, heirlooms and diamond jewellery and it can blend in instead of standing out like silver, custom or fashion jewellery,” says Roemer…. “And, by cutting out the middleman by selling direct online, we are able to price conscious and competitive,” explains German-born Roemer, who is the creative design head of the label. We wanted to transfer our skill-sets to create a brand that is approachable, cool, collectable and long-lasting with pieces you can gift to your mum, sister, daughter or best friend. Instead of sending a bunch of flowers you can gift a beautiful crafted rose gold eternity ring ... how good is that?”
  • Vogue 2: "The Emerald Queen, a life-size elephant designed by Sabine Roemer using Gemfields Zambian emeralds, was sold to an anonymous bidder for a whopping £150,000!"
  • Hello Magaine (source 6): "Jewellery artist Sabine Roemer also revealed the level of detail that went into the gown, stating it "took over 50 hours to handcraft the fine gold plated corset."

  ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP:, my point was that "Some of the depth in the articles isn't substantial, but the amount of coverage should make up for it" per WP:BASIC. In some of the big name sources, yes, they are mostly passing mentions. However, I would assume she's well-known enough in her industry to be called on for quotes and to be featured in bigger name sources, unless I'm missing something. Why would she be called for a quote in the New York Times to comment on another jeweler's work if she's not considered notable or at least an expert in her industry? She's also been consulted in a Forbes article about diamonds. In the articles I mentioned above, she's talking about her business (which is making jewelry), so I personally don't think it's that weird that her quotes sound like she is only talking about jewelry. It's what she does, so I don't know why that should count against her in any way. However, if what you're pointing out is that most of these articles are heavy with quotes from her, I would agree - that is a problem, and I'm having a hard time finding articles that aren't laden with quotes from her.

And when I said "not all of the sources mention 'limited edition lines' or are only promotional", I was talking about all sources about her, not just the ones I mentioned. I didn't decide to sit down and list every source that existed out there about her. She and her work have been featured in other places: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. In multiple sources, she's also been mentioned as the "youngest ever female Masters graduate from Germany’s Pforzheim Goldsmith and Watchmaker school"[25] or the "youngest ever female master goldsmith."[26] But I will admit I'm not the best judge at weeding out bad sources - I apologize I can't give a more concise list.

Comment But my biggest problem with this article being nominated for deletion isn't that she's "obviously" notable (because I don't think that's the case), but instead, I think there hasn't been any attempt at all to update, research, or clean up her article first, which I think would make notability much more obvious. There's only about 50 edits to her article at all, and the only substantial content edits (other than deleting dead links or deleting unsourced content) seem to be from the beginning in 2011 by the article's creator. I think the article needs to be "improved rather than deleted" WP:BEFORE it's nominated for deletion - since it's poorly sourced and has a promotional tone - but there hasn't even been any effort to do so or attempt to start that discussion, as far as I can tell. No cleanup tags, no "needs more sources," no discussion in the talk page - nothing.

I still do not think the sources are any good. I only checked #8 that you provided above: "Design-loving, value-conscious shoppers will also want to research master jewelers with direct-to-consumer luxury brands that sell exclusively via Websites and Instagram. For example, London-based Sabine Roemer jewelry artist https://www.sabineroemer.com/ holds a master's degree from Germany's Pforzheim Goldsmith and Watchmaking School https://goldschmiedeschule.de/ and operates a bespoke jewelry business that caters to high net worth individuals. Roemer's natural diamond jewels have been sold at London's leading luxury emporium Harrods https://www.harrods.com/en-gb/fine-jewellery auctioned for charity at Christie's https://www.christies.com/locations/salerooms/king-street/, and worn by actors such as Morgan Freeman to the Academy Awards. Roemer designs for Atelier Romy https://www.atelierromy.com/ . Selling online only, Atelier Romy passes the savings on to customers in their fine jewelry line, which is made in sterling silver, as well as yellow gold and rose gold vermeil." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think some sort of "quote war," without explanations as to why specific quotes are chosen, is the most helpful to onlookers/users. I refrained from pasting long quotes above when only Roemer's dialogue was quoted from the first Vogue article, but I feel I should mention that parts of the article were left out, including facts about her and her work. Yes, the quote you mentioned is a part of source #8, but there is a whole section underneath where Roemer also speaks about the difference between her process when working with lab-grown versus natural diamonds. To me, that is from a reliable source, that points to her having at least some expertise in her field.

For all the bigger name sources I mentioned: they aren't press releases, they are from reliable/verifiable sources, they aren't promoted content (since there is no by-line by the author of these reputable sources stating so), so I don't know what makes them not "any good" as sources. If you're saying the sound of the content in these sources make the sources not good, I would point to WP:BIASED which says that even though wiki articles must have a neutral POV, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." So the fact that these articles sound promotional or have quotes or content that talk about her jewelry or business---these quotes themselves that are being pulled out don't make them unreliable as sources. Because so far, all that's been said of the sources is that they sound "promotional" or are not "any good," but they're allowed to have a non-neutral tone as long as they're from reliable, non-promoted sources. And many of these sources do include information/facts about her or her work. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a quote war. It is just a routine discussion. You are presenting sources that you suggest support notability. I am presenting actual text in the sources, so other editors can see how thin (i.e. not in-depth) the coverage is. I might point out that you also seem to be arguing that notability of the subject can come from the quality of the publication itself or its approval when you say, for example, Why would she be called for a quote in the New York Times to comment on another jeweler's work if she's not considered notable; notability does not come solely from that. We editors detemrine notability base on the quality and depth of the reporting that is in a good quality publication-- reporters do not determine notability for a wiki article. In pretty much all of the sources you've given, the publications are high quality but the coverage is shallow, trivial or promotional. It does strike me that her company might be notable, but not her.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm realizing the "quote war" bit sounded snappier than I meant it. You are right, the content from the first few articles is less substantial than I first realized. I thought the only problem being mentioned about the sources was that they had parts that sounded promotional, which didn't seem like enough to disregard them, but I agree that many don't seem to have much depth. I do think the second set of articles I mentioned have more in-depth/substantial content, but then the reliability of them is in question (since I don't know which jewelry or lifestyle magazines out there are reliable), which is what I'm stuck on. It feels like there is significant coverage and reliable sources, but the sources that are reliable are so light that it's right on the teetering edge for me of being enough or not. -- Whisperjanes (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Citizen Femme source above ("youngest ever female Masters graduate from Germany’s Pforzheim Goldsmith and Watchmaker school"), and it is clearly a paid placement. Their advertising kit] offer campaigns that "include copy written by Citizen Femme, video content, image galleries and the creation of supporting media.". Once I see that a company has paid for one fake article, any skepticism goes up a notch or two.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the analysis by ThatMontrealIP. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from coverage of her jewelry company, which doesn't seem to be notable either. shoy (reactions) 19:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manila (1258)[edit]

Battle of Manila (1258) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One cited source ("Muslims in the Philippines" by Cesar Adib Majul) failed the verification process. The keyword "1258" only occurs three times in the book, and it only appears when the topic is about Baghdad. One page 23, the keyword "1258" only appears when talking about the seal of Sultan Muhammad Fadl of the Sultanate of Sulu who ascended the throne in the year 1842. Other keywords such as "Raja Ahmad" and "Majapahit" yielded zero results. The Mariano A. Henson source is inaccessible. The apparent lack of reliable sources to support this article also supports its lack of significant coverage. Stricnina (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Stricnina (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Stricnina (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a weird sense of deja vu about this AfD. I’m sure we deleted an article on the same topic about a year ago. Spooky...... Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ah no I see we deleted Battle of Manila (1365) and Battle of Manila (1405). Battle of Manila (1500) is looking pretty ropey too. Mccapra (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage. Angus1986 (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Battle of Manila (1500) should be nominated for deletion as well, as per Mccapra. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as part of a run of ‘battles of Manila’ that are poorly sourced and very doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This should be deleted because every single sentence has a citation needed and a need quotation to verify template at the end, which means it has no citations, which means the article is not notable. Also, I had tried to find links about the battle, and nothing showed up. Analog Horror, (talk to me) 22:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's zero evidence this ever happened. It appears to be propaganda to justify a 21st-Century invasion of the Philippines. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casper TNG[edit]

Casper TNG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards or charted songs. The sources cited are blogs and record lists, or make trivial mention of him. I was unable to locate any biographical information in a reliable secondary source, and newspaper reports of his criminal behavior do not support notability as a musician. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agree w/ nom. Sole source of notability seems to be that he made headlines like "rapper gets in police chase." I'm not finding anything about his actual music except sales sites and other expected fluff. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article meets WP:BASIC, WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLPCRIME. The person in question is notable in a national scale, if not international. References included in the article are from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Toronto Star, The Mississauga News and HotNewHipHop. The person in subject is known in connection with a criminal event in June 2018, added 2 more sources for this in the article. TwinTurbo (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I acknowledge the previous voter's stance on criminal notoriety, but I lean toward WP:BLP1E, which states that a person is not notable "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." This rapper was only in the news for one arrest (though it was a big one). Meanwhile his music has been largely ignored by the media, and most of the article's current music-related sources have him listed very briefly as a guest in someone else's work. His own music has not achieved significant and reliable coverage, and the media coverage he really has achieved is about one time he got caught for acting stupid. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The reliable sources here are covering him in the context of a criminal incident, not in the context of anything related to music, so he doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC — and the criminal incident just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring encyclopedic interest who would pass the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thank you, Bearcat. I'd like to hear from more Canadian editors. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Graham Chapman#Personal life. Sandstein 13:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Sherlock[edit]

David Sherlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don’t think there’s anything here that warrants independent notability of Graham Chapman or Monty Python. Gogolwold (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Graham Chapman#Personal life. Not independently notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in Canada[edit]

2021 in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2022_in_Canada. It isn't normal to have future "[year] in [country]" articles. We have a few elections listed here with unspecified dates, but as we saw recently with the UK elections, the dates and years that these happen are not always set in stone. At best it is a list of future events that are likely, at worst its WP:CRYSTAL. This is the only 2021 country article of this type and I don't think it makes sense to have articles like this until closer to the end of the current calendar year. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 17:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Though I've made update edits on this article, it's too early for its existence. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in late November or early December. This will be valid eventually, but it's not needed yet — and creating new articles is not difficult enough that we would need placeholder pages to exist this far in advance of their actually being useful. This is indeed the only "2021 in [Country]" article that exists as of today — even in the "2021 in North America" navbox at the bottom of the page, every other country in the entire box is just backlinking to the general "History of Country" page instead of to a 2021 subpage. These don't need to exist until the year is only a matter of weeks away. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Current consensus is to delete articles two and more years out, but to keep the next year's article. But see WP:CCC and Trump's going to kill us all when he loses re-election. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bearian, What consensus? Where on that page is there anything about future country articles? We are establishing that consensus now. I'm fine with having an article like this toward the end of the year, but right now it's too early. The fact that this is the only one of its kind does not lend credence to your argument at all. As for your second sentence it is incomprehensible and a borderline BLP violation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua–Switzerland relations[edit]

Nicaragua–Switzerland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG for lack of third party coverage of relations. Most of the article comes from 1 source. https://www.eda.admin.ch/countries/nicaragua/en/home/switzerland-and/bilateral-relations.html LibStar (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not even an embassy. Geschichte (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The relationship between these two countries doesn't seem to be one of the most significant bilateral relationships for either of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no actual rationale for deletion has been provided, and the article clearly fulfills multiple encyclopedic functions. In addition, to respond to this boilerplate nom in the spirit in which it was posted, I will once again note that this nom, like many others on AfD, is based on a fundamental misreading of WP:GNG, which states the conditions under which notability (i.e. appropriateness as an article topic) is presumed. To claim that a "failure" to meet the GNG means that non-notability is presumed is to flip the guideline on its head. The GNG does not provide grounds for deletion. In particular, in this case, such an article makes sense (i.e. the topic is "notable", whether or not a handful of AfD habitués deem it "significant") because it makes far more sense to assign encyclopedic information about Nicaragua-Switzerland relations to a single article than to duplicate it in separate Nicaragua and Switzerland articles. -- Visviva (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rationale is it fails WP:GNG for lack of third party sources. Have you actually found any sources to back your vote? LibStar (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too wordy, so let me try again. The guideline you cite does not support your claim. AfD is not cleanup. If you want to permanently erase the hard work of other editors, you need to make a better case than this. -- Visviva (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You probably oppose deletion of any article. WP:HARDWORK is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have made an excellent case for delete with everyone but you supporting delete. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, (at least) based on my research, such topic (relationship between two mentioned countries) cannot be in a remarkable/acceptable degree of importance to have an independent page, and does't have sufficient independent sources to support it ... presumably, at most it might can be included/merged into other relevant pages. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: [27] This article offers intriguing evidence that the relationship is notable.--TM 16:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a dead link. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link.--TM 18:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We will definitely not find enough reliable sources on this subject to fill out an entire article. Regardless of GNG criteria, it would be pointless to try to make an article with no significant sources dealing with it. Talrolande (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teun Draaisma[edit]

Teun Draaisma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparent claim to notability is making two accurate predictions about the stock market. Other available coverage quotes or mentions him in hiring announcements, but does not provide depth. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Financial Times reported on his moving jobs, which suggests he's significant[28] and also describes him as one of "FT Alphaville favourites"[29]. Given that Alphaville is largely behind a paywall, I'd expect there to be more FT coverage available.Jahaza (talk) 21:43, 27 January 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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priashevshchina[edit]

Priashevshchina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A newspaper that published for a few years, with nothing to state why this is notable. My own searches did not bring up anything that can prove notability. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn since the page has been expanded 4 times since the nom.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, notable article subject. Played a key role in articulating Russian/Rusyn/Ukrainian national identity at a crucial stage in history. Googling in Ukrainian gives a lot on hits on google books, notably. --Soman (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• — Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. (participant clarification)--DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LOTSOFGHITS. If the newspaper did extraordinary things in its short lifespan, then it should be easy to show how it passes the WP:ORGCRIT (which is a higher bar than GNG for Orgs). Without hard evidence stating WP:Clearly notable and WP:Assertion don't really help the AfD.DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: an acceptable stub on a historic newspaper. For example, this source indicates notablity: Occasional Paper - Issue 6 - Page 34: Its newspaper, Priashevshchina, was published in Russian, but approached problems from a Ukrainian -- or at least local -- point of view. Members of the intelligentsia, which was still under strong Russian cultural influence, acquired literary ... --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  K.e.coffman, I really want to understand what others are seeing that i am not. Your link looks like a passing mention to me. Do you believe that historical newspapers will easily pass notability with such refs while contemporary newspapers need a higher bar? DBigXrayᗙ 20:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As per K.e.coffman and the sources shown in the article which pass the GNG. If the nominator is looking for "extraordinary things" to be worthy of keeping, that is not how the GNG works, nor is the fact that the paper "published for a few years" an indication of a lack of notability. WP:ORGCRIT clearly states it is for organisations "with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion." Which is hardly appropriate for a historic journal that as the nomination notes ceased publication many years ago. Nor is WP:NNEWSPAPER a good argument for the same reason, and in fact has a subsection Wikipedia:DEFUNCTNEWS for this very reason. Spokoyni (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spokoyni, I hope you do understand that passing mentions don't prove WP:GNG. The concern here is lack of "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and not that it published for just few years. You are claiming that any newspaper (including political mouthpieces such as the subject of this AfD) automatically passes Wikipedia's notability criteria simply because it got a few passing mentions. This flies in the face of WP:N

• The source + quote mentioned above by Coffman is clearly a passing mention with no evidence of notability from this quote. It only confirms the paper existed.

Let's take a look at the refs in the article.

• ref 1 mentions the paper but the publisher of this source is "Центр. ком-т Культурного союзу укр. трудящих в ЧССР" (Cultural Union of Ukrainian workers in the Czechoslovakia) which is an ethnic organisation (similar to a political party.) So this publisher isnt an independent newspaper and can be considered an SPS.
• ref 2 Does not mention the subject at all. (see results.) A two line mention in this snippet that mentions the newspaper's lifespan and its promoters.
• ref 3 Only a one line WP:Passing mention that says "The paper was shut down"
• ref 4 does not mention the subject see search result
• ref 5 is again a one line WP:Passing mention. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, has the possibility of multiple ways to transcribe a non-Latin script name into Latin script occured to you? --Soman (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand completely what I am saying, and as has been shown on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golos Pravdy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trud, Zemlia i More, your attempts to apply WP:ORGCRIT and assertions of failure to meet GNG are not upheld by the community. Your assessment of the sources would be more convincing if you had some knowledge of the subjects you were trying to argue. Ref 2 for instance is clearly not in cyrillic, so your search using Пряшевщина of course turned up nothing. Try this. I am concerned that you have either cherry picked the way you searched that source, or WP:Competence is lacking in how you approach the matter of sources. Spokoyni (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spokoyni I stand corrected on ref2. But even in this snippet I can only see a 2 line mention about the newspaper's lifespan and its promoters, please explain how you are calling it as significant coverage. Please refrain from WP:ADHOM and attacking the AfD nominator, without providing evidence. If you have rebuttals to my assertions on sources (like you shared for ref2) please present them I will be glad to hear them and if convinced I am ready to withdraw the AfD, but at the moment there is nothing AFAICS that proves the notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it hard to maintain good faith when I see such evidence of canvassing at [30], [31], [32]. Snippet view shows you four lines, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend that the mention stops because the snippet view doesn't show any more than that. This just shows the weakenss of your approach to rely on current google returns for sources for historical subjects. Ref 2 shows that this subject has its own entry in a national encyclopedia. I see that as establishing notability, you see that as a passing mention. And you really must stop trying to suppress disagreement with your POV by claiming that you are being the subject of personal attacks. I can see that's getting very short shrift from several editors, and I would be prepared to join them in an official complaint. The evidence I provided was that you had, at best through lack of competence in handling the sources that were presented, inappropriately dismissed a source. Spokoyni (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not meet the definition of canvassing, see Wikipedia:Canvassing which explicitly says that placing a message at "the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion" is appropriate. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (Thanks Mr. Vernon) Spokoyni, Please familiarize yourself with WP:CANVAS before falsely accusing others of Canvassing. WP:APPNOTE states An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. I would suggest you strike off this inappropriate accusation of canvassing. your comments are more on WP:ADHOM and less on the topic of the AfD, hence I requested for fresh perspectives from appropriate wikiproject.. I really don't want to go offtopic, So I will ignore the rest of your comment. Another thing that You pointed in your first comment that you believe the contemporary newspapers are involved in advertising using PR professionals, don't you think that this also happened in past. Or do you really believe that there was no advertisement in the past ? That is quite a shocking assumption. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VOTESTACK. DBigXray has selected those projects which seem most likely to agree with his point of view. There have been no notifications to the Russian, Slovakian, or Ukrainian projects. And this is "Or do you really believe that there was no advertisement in the past ? That is quite a shocking assumption." what is called a strawman argument. Spokoyni (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikiproject newspaper so the next relevant wikiproject that cover newspaper topics were alerted.Spokoyni you yourself stated above that "WP:ORGCRIT clearly states it is for organisations "with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion." Which is hardly appropriate for a historic journal that as the nomination notes ceased publication many years ago." Aren't you stating that historic journal did not indulged in advertising or promotion ? I am simply pointing this obvious fallacious argument made by you. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, how do any of those projects imply vote stacking? That article says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." How would posting to the talk pages of WikiProject_Politics and WikiProject_Organizations be considered selective and why would those projects be biased against this newspaper? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and analysis of the hits turning up in Google Books mentioning the newspaper in passing and it not being the subject of coverage per WP:GNG. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, DBigXray tagged number of the references in the article. I provided quotes at Talk:Priashevshchina. Two points in particular to note, Наукові записки mentions Priashevshchina on 18 pages, so there could definitely be scope for expansion for a person with language skills and access to the journal in full. And in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Priashevshchina is given a full entry of its own. --Soman (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Magocsi mentions the following : "012 Duklja, Vol. XXXIII, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Edited by Fedir KovaC. Presov: Kul'turnyj sojuz ukrajins'kych trudjaSCych CSSR, 1985, 80 pages each issue. This volume contains relatively fewer scholarly articles in comparison with previous issues. Among the topics dealt with are life in the Presov Region during the first year after World War II, by Ivan Vanat (No. 1); the role of the newspaper Prjasevscina (1945-51) in the literary life of the Presov Region, by Mychajlo Roman (No. 3)" so... if anyone would get their hands on this publication, there is definitely expansion scope. The fact that the newspaper has been the main topic for academic articles should be taken into consideration in the AfD debate. --Soman (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: quote: "After the end of the war, several events had a very positive influence on the development of literature: The newspaper PrjaSevSCina started coming out towards the end of the war and creative individuals grouped around it. In addition to covering politics, the newspaper stimulated the development of literature." (Sirka, 1978, p. 31, https://books.google.co,/books?id=WwuxAAAAIAAJ ) --Soman (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: http://www.clovekaspolocnost.sk/jquery/pdf.php?gui=5FLUAWHCYZ7IG5CZU4GB4U9W : "Po roku 1945 začalo vychádzať niekoľko ukrajinských časopisov a novín. Medzi najvýznamnejšie, na stránkach ktorých sa objavovali články o ukrajinskom národnostnom školstve patrili: Prjaševščina, Demokratičeskij golos, Karpatskaja zvezda (Karpatska zvizda), Nove žyttja, Družno vpered, Duklja. Spomenieme aj Hlas ľudu hospodársky, kultúrny, spoločenský a politický týždenník, ktorý vydával Krajský výbor Komunistickej strany Slovenska pre prešovský kraj v rokoch 1945 – 1950 a následne jeho pokračovateľom sa stali noviny Nový život, ktoré vychádzali do roku 1957. Obdobie šesťdesiatych rokoch 20. storočia je vdobovej tlači výrazné svojou početnosťou článkov o ukrajinskom školstve na Slovensku." (quick translate: "After 1945, several Ukrainian magazines and newspapers were published. Some of the most prominent pages on the Ukrainian national education system were: Prjaševščina, ...") --Soman (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, https://www.rusyn.sk/data/files/23.pdf , pages 28-29, has material on the role of Priashevshchina in propagation of Soviet annexation of the region, and the reaction of Slovak authorities. Someone with better language skills could adapt the material better than me. --Soman (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to me that a newspaper that survived six years in those turbulant times is notable. Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, https://books.google.com/books?id=rtJAAAAAYAAJ p. 640, states "Okrem slovenských periodík vychádzala tlač pre občanov ukrajinskej národnosti. Z jej štyroch časopisov mal vedúce postavenie týždenník Prjaševščina (25.3.1945-28.6.1945)" Google translate: "In addition to Slovak periodicals, the press was published for citizens of Ukrainian nationality. Of its four magazines, the leading weekly newspaper was Prjashevshchina (25.3.1945-28.6.1951)". So whilst this can reaffirm the notability of Priashevshchina as the major Ukrainian publication in Czechoslovakia at the time (someone please double-check the Slovak translation...), it gives slightly different dates of publishing than other refs. --Soman (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per K.e.coffman. The sources currently in the article are fine and the very fact that "A newspaper that published for a few years" (70 years ago) is mentioned at all shows its significance. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's notable enough to have its own entry in Encyclopedia of Ukraine (p. 216). -Zanhe (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The brevity of the mentions in several sources is irrelevant for establishing notability. What the newspaper represents is what establishes notablility, not the verbosity of the sources. Inclusion in another encyclopedia is sufficient to establish notability for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. That it has an entry in a reliable tertiary source makes this a slam-dunk by any standard, but even without that, this is clearly an encyclopedic topic with adequate coverage to support a stand-alone article. Even if we supposed for the sake of argument that the GNG creates a ground for deletion rather than merging (by its own terms, it plainly doesn't), the sources cited earlier in the discussion would already have been more than sufficient. -- Visviva (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment withdrawing nom since the page has been expanded 4 times since it was nominatedDBigXrayᗙ 07:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason McCoy Inc[edit]

Jason McCoy Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

New York City art gallery. I cannot find even a scrap of good independent coverage. GNG/NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Comment This is the first time I've seen a gallery list "exhibited artists". That means artists whose work they sell on the secondary market, not working artists they represent (Waseem Ahmed (artist), Kenneth Blom, Terrell James, Kevin King (artist), Nick Lamia, Christiane Löhr, Ilana Manolson, Bryan Osburn, Annelies Štrba, listed here: https://www.jasonmccoyinc.com/artists) and not artists whose estate they represent (Bernard Childs, Stephen Greene (artist), Raymond Han, Frederick Kiesler, Charles Pollock, listed here: https://www.jasonmccoyinc.com/estates). Many of those articles are problematic, and I'm fairly sure they have been created by the gallery itself: either User:Jmcc1234 or User:MCCOYGALLERY. Vexations (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think User:MCCOYGALLERY might be related? :) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, here are sources that review exhibitions/mention McCoy: Artnet - "A Show in Munich Reveals Intimate and Unusual Works by Jackson Pollock (And, No, They’re Not Paintings)—See Them Here", The New York Times - "Review/Art; Condo Creates a Future With Layers of Nostalgia ... Hunt Slonem Jason McCoy Inc.", NGA - "Jackson Pollock - Totem Lesson 2 .. from whom bought through Jason McCoy, New York, by the Australian National Gallery, February 1986", Artforum - "Charles Pollock Jason McCoy Gallery", MOMA - "Jackson Pollock Screenprints: A new Discovery ... They were neither documented nor shown anywhere pub licly until 1995, .. Footnote 2. Exhibited at the Jason McCoy Gallery, New York .. It is also possible that, .. Pollock was considering using them for a book .. Footnote 7. Stephen Cadwalader of the Jason McCoy Gallery, New York, brought this suggestion to the author's attention.(pp 2-4)", but is this enough for wikiarticles about McCoy or his gallery? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: ...Is this enough for wikiarticles about McCoy or his gallery? Unsurprisingly I would say no. The first link you gave has some good coverage and into. The second and third are simply namechecks, and the fourth is a footnote.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, i note that, according to article, the gallery was established in 1982 (sources?), some editors may suggest that this contributes to wikinotability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nailya Alexander Gallery), à la "If I can make it there, I'm gonna make it anywhere,"(?) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the coverage cited is decidedly shallow. Not all galleries in New York, a world art capital, or even the Fuller Building, are notable automatically, although as indicated by Mr. Sinatra, it's one factor. In the past 30 years the artists featured here are, to put it kindly, B-Listers. I would not oppose a redirect to Lee Krasner, who did have a connection. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Stockton earthquake[edit]

2020 Stockton earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No encyclopedic value Dawnseeker2000 08:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 08:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:EVENT. Mikenorton (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can the content be moved into a list of UK Earthquakes instead of just deleting it? 80.169.132.92 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the trend in Wikiproject Earthquakes is to apply our notability guidelines to both articles and lists. In other words, if the event does not qualify for a stand-alone article it should not be in a list. Remember that we are an encyclopedia. Not an earthquake catalog. If a reader is needing to view that many earthquakes, there are several very high quality catalogs to choose from the major players in the earthquake monitoring field. Their websites are outstanding. Dawnseeker2000 19:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this isn't notable enough for a standalone, but that's kind of an odd trend considering lists are perfect for information that isn't notable enough for an article and List of earthquakes in the British Isles has few if any notable earthquakes in the list. Redirect this. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The state of that list article is problematic as it is currently an indiscriminate list of all earthquakes that have been felt, which isn't what wikipedia is for. I've attempted to improve it in the past and got nowhere - I'm trying to get the energy to have another go. Mikenorton (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be a sourced list of earthquakes which occurred in the UK and is a "list assembled with thought" - how is that in any way indiscriminate? SportingFlyer T·C 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but here is not the place for that discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable seismic event. ⌚️ (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable tremor, WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Just came by to point out how misleading the title is, since Stockton, California is the place that is located in a real earthquake-prone region. Just sayin'. No need to address since article will probably be deleted. StonyBrook (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Glasman[edit]

Joe Glasman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The history shows only two significant contributions to this article, created by an SPA in 2011 and then a large-scale update by an IP SPA in 2014.

None of the sources are RSs. It's self-promotional, for a career of little achievement - nothing that can justify GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Plenty of issues with this one, including the non-independent sources used, the article being highly promotional, etc. But basically this individual appears non-notable. There is simply no SIGCOV, nor does he satisfy any of the MUSICIAN criteria. PK650 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - winning a Clio is a big award per WP:CREATIVE. I'd like to see better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearian: I couldn't find reliable sourcing for the Clio. In fact, most of the awards can't be verified. PR fluff like "has received 30 international awards for his work, including Clios, Mobius and D&ADs" rings highly of paid editing, don't you think? And are the Clio awards even notable/significant? They used to be a business charging for tickets and nominations, so their relevance is questionable at best. PK650 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reasonable persons can disagree on the value of a Clio. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Winning the Clio may or may not be notable, but since there's no proof that he actually won one, that's irrelevant. None of the "sources" I checked for the other "international awards" mention him. The claim that he worked on Superman IV and the Deathwish series isn't supported by his IMDb entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to Wachregiment (disambiguation). Sandstein 19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wachregiment[edit]

Wachregiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

These are all partial title matches. Perhaps sources exist for an overview broad-concept article, but it's not appropriate as a disambiguation page. buidhe 17:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Wachregiment (disambiguation) as there are clearly multiple potential matches and WP:NOPRIMARY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Wachregiment (disambiguation) as per Eggishorn. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To address the relisting comment: the original nomination did not make an argument about disambiguation other than, "...it's not appropriate". Well, why? Renaming would comply with the WP:DAB policy: there are clearly multiple possible matches for "wachtregiment" as a search term, it is a plausible search term, the page contains redirects to 5 possible results, all of which are notable on their own, and none of the results is primary. Hence, renaming to follow the naming standard for all other disambiguation pages and keeping it is beneficial to the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but all the results are partial title matches. None of them are named, standalone as "Wachregiment"—there are other words in the names. WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. buidhe 19:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATA is not policy, it's an essay and nothing more. WP:DAB, on the other hand, is an editing guideline and the whole point of the project is to be useful. Lastly, the standard isn't "will the entire target title be used as a search term", it's "will the redirecting title be used as a search term". Which do you think a reader is more likely to type into a search box: "Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment" or "wachtregiment"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:DAB says that dabs should not be created for partial title matches. buidhe 02:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wachregiment (disambiguation). I appreciate the reference to WP:Partial given above. Read closely you'll notice that partial title match DABs are not forbidden but restricted to certain circumstances. We have Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, since that name is used by the US state article, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi". and It is entirely proper to include such place names in disambiguation pages with the specific title (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation)); but only exceptionally in the generic title (we do not expect to see North Carolina in North (disambiguation), just as we do not expect to see Mississippi River in River (disambiguation)). Having reviewed that and given the search term is plausible and that there is no primary, a DAB is appropriate. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename List of wachregiments. None of the entries qualify for a dab page per WP:PTM; you don't see a gigantic Regiment (disambiguation), do you? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't object to this, but I'm not convinced LISTN has been demonstrated. buidhe 21:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict)You know, I considered that, but I couldn't find discussion as a group or set, WP:LISTN, nor from going over the articles could I discern a common pattern beyond the name and being elite, as not all the units served a ceremonial function. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to bludgeon this discussion, but I don't know if I'll have time to get back to this again. Wachregiment is a logical search term, but it can't be redirected because it has five more or less similarly plausible targets. Readers should have some kind of navigational assistance if they use that search term to help them find what they're looking for. If there is a rule which prevents us from providing that assistance, we should just ignore it. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Body psychotherapy. Sandstein 19:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reichian body-oriented psychotherapy[edit]

Reichian body-oriented psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I had merged this article with body psychotherapy, but a user reverted this merger with the claim that the umbrella term is not a synonym. However, there does not seem to be a type of body psychotherapy that is not based in part on Reich's claims. As such, this article is either functioning as a soapbox or it is a WP:POVFORK. Either way, that's a delete or "reinstate redirect". jps (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator's rationale is contradicted by the Body psychotherapy itself, which reads:

Alongside the body psychotherapies built directly on the work of Reich, there is a branch of post-Jungian body psychotherapies, developed from Jung's idea of the 'somatic unconscious'.^[1] While many post-Jungians dismiss Reich and do not work with the body,^[2] contributors to Jungian derived body psychotherapy include Arnold Mindell with his concept of the 'dreambody' and the development of process oriented psychology.^[3][4][5][6] Process oriented psychology is known for its focus on the body and movement.^[7][8]

--Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've gotten this confused here. If you check each of these sources you will find references back to Reich who indeed was the initiator of this modality. That some later therapists have thought it wise to avoid Reich in their justifications and refer instead to his antecedent Jung is not surprising given the issues that arose with Reich's orgone medicine. The point is, however, that these are not two separate subjects and the article that exists does not add any reliably sourced content to Wikipedia beyond promotion of pseudoscience. jps (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note that the article was originally named bioenergetic analysis, which is definitely not synonymous with body psychotherapy. I suspect the renaming was misguided. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but it's very hard to identify sources which indicate that these therapies are receiving notice outside of the small communities which promote them. I think it may be worthwhile to pare down our coverage of these until we find better sources. Right now, we're relying on the credulity of therapists who promote their methods over others without much third-party review. jps (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case, but as it turns out, only Reichian body-oriented psychotherapy contains any significant criticism. Body psychotherapy, instead, is written from the POV of its adherents. Therefore, deleting Reichian body-oriented psychotherapy would exacerbate the POV problem. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to body psychotherapy - this does seem to be notable bollocks, but there's really only one topic as far as I can tell so the issue is basically one of WP:POVFORKing. Guy (help!) 11:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into body psychotherapy - [33] suggests it's Reichian. —PaleoNeonate – 00:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. I remember studying this as a undergrad in my Psychology of Motivation course. There's not enough a a difference with body psychology, so this is in effect a fork. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andaman Kural[edit]

Andaman Kural (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. No indication why this newspaper is notable and deserves an article. It is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:MILL. DBigXrayᗙ 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the main Tamil language publication of the archipelago, at least in earlier period. There are about 50,000 Tamil speakers in the Union Territory, so having a circulation of 4,500 (each newspaper is read by more than 1 person in most cases) means that the publication reaches a major share of the Tamil community. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• — Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

  Soman, still fails WP:ORGCRIT. You are giving statistical juggling without a link to back up your numbers, while the requirement here is of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, useful, well-sourced and encyclopedic. The fact that it does not qualify for a presumption of notability under certain guidelines is not itself grounds for removing such facially encyclopedic material, particularly when the article clearly embodies the hard work of many editors over an extended period. Also, tangentially, WP:MILL is one of the most shockingly anti-wiki essays I've had the misfortune to read. -- Visviva (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visviva I am sure you don't mean that all newspapers are notable. I could not find the coverage that merits a pass of WP:NORG. It is possible that I may have missed something, Please post the links that led you to vote keep. If they are indeed convincing I may offer to withdraw the AfD. DBigXrayᗙ 07:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently passé to suggest that people on AfD should read the policies they cite. But if you were to do so, you would note that WP:N (and its various specialized guidelines) is not about whether a topic should be covered at all, but whether it should be covered in a freestanding article rather than in an article about some superordinate topic, e.g. Newspapers of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (article does not exist). Perhaps such a merge would be warranted in this case, but I think that's a question that editors with local expertise can tackle, and it doesn't require any form of deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns about WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTYELLOWPAGE. In any case links that support the notability are expected from AFD participants and it is still sorely lacking. DBigXrayᗙ 08:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I searched online for "Andaman Kural" and "अंडमान कुरल" but nothing much turned up. The content in the article seems to be it. No prejudice against a List of newspapers of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Ping me if you find significant additional coverage. starship.paint (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify, the newspaper seems not verifiable, at least I couldn't find almost anything about it. Could potentially move it to the proposed List of newspaper of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands if there is something about it. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrandSafway[edit]

BrandSafway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Google, Google News, and Google Books all return not much but press releases (and rehash), meaning this article topic fails to meet the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In case the community/closing admin cares, there are also concerns here of (undeclared) paid editing (I was not the one to assess that). --Izno (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question who eviscerated the article? I prefer to evaluate the article when it was an article and not a sentence as it is now. COI does not necessitate completely erasing. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am the one who removed the majority of the content today because it was not sourced to reliable sources. There might have been content prior that was of actual interest, but the search for sources indicated that there was nothing to see here even without my removals. --Izno (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I started putting the article together. The company is notable and has 114 locations in North America and 253 loactions around the world. They have 38,000 plus employees/associates. The company is valued at over 6.7 billion dollars. The article needs additional work, but it is clearly a pass of WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability for companies is based entirely on substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources - not on size, turnover or number of employees. Of the 7 sources in the article as of writing this comment: two are the websites of the company or parents/subsidiaries, the Nasdaq one is simply a syndicated version of the Reuters article (and so in fact the inclusion of it gives a distinct impression of deliberate padding to make the sources appear better than they are), and one is a business directory website. None of those are suitable sources and all should simply be removed. That leaves the original Reuters piece, which is a run-of-the-mill business announcement and offers almost no depth. Finally, the two BIC pieces: one is an interview, therefore not independent, so does little to establish notability. The other is a very brief announcement with little depth. Both would, I think, deserve inclusion alongside better sources but on their own they clearly do not offer ‘substantial coverage’ in ‘multiple’ sources. Hug^syrup 08:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I also explicitly considered the sources that Lightburst has added before bringing this article to AFD and identified the same issues, hence why we're here. So, I agree with your analysis. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A company worth billions of dollars is obviously notable based on common sense. To claim something is notable if some random reporter decided to choose it to write an article about one day, no matter how small and insignificant it is, but a company worth billions of dollars is not, is simple ridiculous. The guidelines have a disclaimer at the top which reads "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Dream Focus 11:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  None of our notability guidelines agree with your position. As I said in the nomination, I saw nothing else either in news reports or in books to consider this company in the realm of notable, whatever its revenues or otherwise. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to here they also go by Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services Inc (or they where acquired by them. Its not really clear) and also Safway Group Holding. Which might be why there isn't many article out there when looking for BrandSafway. Although that's just speculation as I didn't check. It could just as likely be that they aren't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject has a complex history. It was formed by merger in 2017 and so the name "BrandSafway" is comparatively recent, being derived from the parents "Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services" and the "Safway Group". The latter started in 1936 as the "Uecker Equipment Company" and was then renamed "Safway Steel Scaffolds" which then became one of the largest scaffolding makers in the world. The Brand side of the family has an even more complex history, starting when Pitou, Beinecke and Davidson (no relation), founded Patent Construction Systems in 1909 – see the State Library of Massachusetts for details. A variety of other scaffolding business were acquired and the conglomerate was then acquired by Harsco in 1964 which continued the process of acquisition. So, we have numerous company names to search for and therefore a naïve Google search on the current title is not enough. There are substantial and detailed sources about scaffolding and construction such as this and so there is ample scope to develop the topic and its history of over 100 years. Per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rather suspect that 'Massachusetts Historical Commission Form B Annex E' is a primary source, and so cannot really be used to establish notability. And even were that not the case, I also do not believe that a historical and architectural description of a building does anything to establish the notability of a company that occupied/occupies it. Hug^syrup 15:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the Massachusetts Historical Commission history is secondary as it was written many years after the matters that it describes. And it has an extensive bibliography, giving the sources which were the basis of its research. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Defaulting to keep, without prejudice against another nomination if the notability issues become clearer. – bradv🍁 15:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muzammil Haque[edit]

Muzammil Haque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Whereas the subject is possibly notable, the article is POV and says nothing about the subject. Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I could find only one reliable source that mentions the subject which is not already in the article. Even that source mentions him in passing. But this source looks more like a press release by an organisation in his name. All I could find was non-reliable sources mentioning things named after the subject like school, hostel, and similar; but not about the subject himself. I also added a little content about the subject from a source already present in the article, which is about the death of subjec's brother. Such paid "people mourning after XYZ's death" obituaries/news are common in India. Overall, the subject doesn't have coverage, nor significant coverage in sources, only passing mentions that too mostly in non-reliable sources; thus failing general notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete having schools named after you is not a sign of notability, otherwise we would have an article on John R. King (school secretary) and Paul K. Causino.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - having three public buildings named after a subject indicates the subject might be notable. I found some sources on Google Books that need to be examined. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian: Hi. I couldnt find any public places names after him in my search. Would tell me their names? It will help me with search, and maybe i would find something usable. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, see a youth hostel here and a primary school here. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are government schools and hostels at universities named after him. At different places Mojammil, Mujammil, Mozammil has been written because of translation from Assamese to English. If one google using different spellings one finds many mentions.InspireTheWorld1 (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weal delete whilst having stuff names after you might be a sign of notability, it may be a sign of having wealthy or influential parents, not of any inherent notability. We need RS about the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  He was an activist who succumbed to police bullets. Do you think government names hostel in public universities and media organisations gives away awards if someones parents are wealthy or when someone is notable enough then only awards and hostels are named after persons?!InspireTheWorld1 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do (ohh and universities often name things after or at the behest of donors, as do hospitals and libraries), if they are notable we would have more then just things named after them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• in the light of the arguements provided by InspireTheWorld1, and Bearian: the local politicians usually use this tactic to appease/pacify public. Other organisations have similar intentions, including brandjacking. It is very common in India. The subject died in a protest, obviously someone or other is going to use the subject's name. But the fact that we cant find basic information about the subject, is an indication that they are not notable. If they were really a notable person, a lot more things would have been named after them. I dont like to say this, but the subject was 17 years old protestor in a protest, among many others. He was hit by a bullet, and died. He was not an organiser of that protest, or some influential leader. The subject fails general notability guidelines. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One can read this URL wherein the spelling is wrongly mentioned as Mojammil Haque. ^[1]. If we use alternative spellings then lots of citation can be found. Even more in Assamese language.

The citation I mentioned discusses about the subject and hence falls under the general notably rules of Wiki. InspireTheWorld1 (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InspireTheWorld1, If you have access to Assamese language sources then you can present them as well. It is not that only English sources can be accepted. I understand that the regional language is Assamese so it is expected. DBigXrayᗙ 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can understand and write Assamese. Via google search in Assamese by typing মোজাম্মিল হক অসম (Muzammil Haque Assam) and শ্বহীদ মোজাম্মিল হক (martyr Muzammil Haque) I found coverages of his death anniversary these are not enough for passing WP:GNG. He is considered as first martyr of Assamese Language Movement. So the article can be redirected to Assamese Language Movement.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was a martyr of Madhaym movement and not language movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspireTheWorld1 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, I can't understand Assamese but one of the "recognition" he has is through the name of an award of the Assam Sahitya Sabha is a major literary institution. So if we are going to weigh on the merit of the argument of whether having public institutions named after yourself as sign of notability. He might just pass. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO makes not mention of "having an award named after them". At best this is an argument to have a brief mention about him in any section about the award at Assam Sahitya Sabha. When I start to see "variant spellings" being used I have to ask "how do we know its the same person"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded with Slatersteven. We can add a little about the subject in Assam Sahitya Sabha appropriately. (I also fixed Slatersteven's comment/signature in this edit.) —usernamekiran (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Karanfilovski-Bojs[edit]

Dragan Karanfilovski-Bojs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I did Google search, and I couldn't really find much about the subject of this article that isn't already said. The only notable thing about him is the Eurovision Song Contest 2000... King of Scorpions 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. King of Scorpions 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. King of Scorpions 17:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V unless it's sourced that he was a star in Macedonia. Had he been a performer at the ESC it might have been different, but he was just a songwriter. Could redirect to either the song or his family member. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. It's up to editors to change the redirect target or to merge any content from history. There's consensus to not keep this, but no consensus as to where to redirect or merge this to. So that's up to the editorial process to figure out. Sandstein 13:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Displacer beast[edit]

Displacer beast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to establish notability. The only current reception source is a trivial listicle. TTN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The information in reliable, secondary sources is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. There is the "top ten" style list currently included, and then brief entries in a couple of books that do nothing but describe the creature as it exists in-game. There is nothing that would establish any kind of real world notability. Rorshacma (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. I just will never understand the bizarre desire of some editors to remove content rather than preserve it. Your mate down the pub? Your house? Your brother's band? Clearly not notable. A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability is not inherited, so it really does not matter how notable, nor how many millions of people play D&D. The individual elements of the game are not automatically notable, themselves, and need to clear the WP:GNG on their own merits (i.e., having sufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources). Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Notability is not inherited" really is a completely irrelevant comment in relation to this discussion (but a very popular one among those who love to get articles deleted, I've noticed). Nobody is claiming it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is not what you were arguing with your claim that "A well-established element of a game played by millions? Clearly worthy of recording", then I'm not actually sure what rationale you are using to argue to preserve the material, as WP:ITSNOTABLE is also not a valid argument. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an opinion. As are most comments at AfD. Remember, we don't have rules on Wikipedia. Something that is too often forgotten by those whose primary purpose and source of enjoyment here is to delete others' work, I've found. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Insinuating that people who do thankless AfD's because they somehow love deleting people's work is ridiculous. Mostly because it's not "deleted". That work can always be transwikied if it's something totally unique and helpful to fans. I go to fan wikis all the time for info on various franchises and media. Though usually it already exists off wiki in superior detail._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it really? I've been here a long time and I've actually seen evidence (on user talkpages) that some editors do indeed celebrate the deletion of articles and see it as one of their main purposes for being here and their main source of enjoyment while they are here. So no, I'm sorry to say I do not believe it's ridiculous at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the sources are really independent enough of the topic for this to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't support a redirect, either - the proposed redirect location is to a WP:GAMEGUIDE which probably also needs to be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear SportingFlyer, I have a different opinion about the List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, but would you consider changing your mind about deletion of displacer beast if the target was Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons instead? That would in my opinion be just as valid a merge target. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article also appears to fail WP:GAMEGUIDE. 07:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

How so, as that article is mostly based on independent secondary sources, and mostly contains meta-information rather than plot-summary-like information? Daranios (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable monstercruft that fails GNG. As said above, already exists on the Forgotten Realms wiki in superior detail._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Two secondary sources are used in the article, and the displacer beast also appears in The Monsters Know What They're Doing. If that's not enough to keep the article, it should be merged and redirected, because there is no benefit in removing all information by deletion. Daranios (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Monsters Know What They're Doing is actually one of the book entries I mentioned in my comment above as being nothing but a straight description of the creature as it exists in-game. That book is literally just a game guide for most of its entries, and does not really have any sort of discussion or commentary that indicates real world notability of the creatures it describes. Rorshacma (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Monsters Know What They're Doing provides the description and use in the game, but only very little further real-world connection for the displacer beast. (That's different in some other cases.) I understand that a purely plot-summary article is no good in Wikipedia. However, WP:GNG does not say that "significant coverage" has to be done all in one source (which would exclude usage of many sources). WP:GNG also does not say that a secondary source providing only plot summaries does not count towards providing notability. As long as extant secondary sources together provide "significant coverage", WP:GNG can be fulfilled.

As I am obiously leaning towards a more loose interpretation, I see the "significant coverage" fullfilled by these three sources (you mentioned there were more?), and therefore want to keep the article. I can understand if someone sees this more critically and says this as too little for a stand-alone article, so that it should be merged (if a target is available, which it is) and redirected.

What I cannot understand is why it should be deleted. WP:GNG says "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." What would be the benefit of loosing what's here instead of at least putting it into another article? How would that make Wikipedia better? Daranios (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, the other book I was referring to in my comment was the "For Dummies" book, but that one is basically just a mention - a Displacer Beast is just the example monster mentioned in the paragraph explaining how awarding experience works, but there is no actual coverage of what a Displacer Beast is. Also, as mentioned in other AFDs, the independence of the "For Dummies" books is debatable, as they were written by two, at the time, current employees of Wizards of the Coast. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Monsters_in_Dungeons_&_Dragons#TSR_2009_–_Monster_Manual_(1977), where it is mentioned in context. This was one of the early monsters and there are sources across many authors for it spanning 30 years of coverage. There is not enough independent sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but basic facts about the monster are verifiable, e.g., a brief mention in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. It is a plausible search term and it is Wikipedia policy per WP:ATD to prefer alternatives to deletion, such redirects, for verifiable material. Hence, I think redirect is a reasonable policy-based course of action. None of the editors recommending deletion have given a policy-based reason as to why deletion is better than redirect; claiming "doesn't meet WP:GNG" is not enough to preclude a redirect. As such, their recommendations to delete are flawed. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 19:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict × 2) Merge and redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters per Daranios and Necroesp. Miniapolis 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to insufficient WP:RS to establish WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added another RS and removed some of the fan cruft. Ignoring all of the TSR publications cited, the article has three RS (Ewatt; Witwer et al; Bricken) that all choose to put a spotlight on this creation as an important part of the early game of D&D. Guinness323 (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Arts and Arcana" book, while not published by Wizards themselves, is an officially licensed dungeons and dragons product, and is listed on the official D&D product page as such. I would not really consider it to be independent any more than, say, the the current official comic or video games like Baldur's Gate. All of them, while not actually published by TSR/Wizards, are officially licensed, created with Wizards, and advertised as being official D&D products on their own website. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three authors are independent of WotC. Their plan was to demonstrate the changes in D&D artwork, but in order to do so without running into copyright issues, they needed to gain permission of WotC to use any and all artwork. The easiest way to do this was to get a license from WotC. If WotC had commissioned the book as a vanity piece, it would have been a WotC publication and would have said so on the title page. In fact it is published by Ten Speed Press, and the copyright is owned by Witwer et al. Guinness323 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Guinness323's argumentation for the independence of Arts and Arcana seems plausible to me. The authors seem not to be associated with Wizards of the Coast. An internet search provided a Forbes article, which says things like: The "illustrated history is providing an unprecedented look at the visual evolution of the game, showing its continued influence on the worlds of pop culture and fantasy" and "Art & Arcana helps put the game in context". That sounds exactly like the kind of out-of-universe analytical content which has been belamented as absent in so many AfDs. Daranios (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on real-world independent sources: Art & Arcana and Of Dice and Men, currently cited in the article. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article currently cites three non-primary sources (Arts & Arcana, Of Dice and Men, and io9), which should be enough to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Neutral (see the belove comments) Not a very active user (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Of Dice and Men/Witwer source is clearly not significant coverage: according to a Google Books search, the book only mentions this once and directly quotes from the Monster Manual. The io9 is a Gizmodo article which just includes it in a list of monsters. Neither of these demonstrate notability so I stand on my delete !vote. I don't have access to Arts & Arcana, so I'm even giving that the benefit of the doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 07:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked out "Of Dice And Men" from Google Books, and it seems that you are right. I'll change my vote to "neutral" unless more non-primary sources can be found. Not a very active user (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, of the secondary sources given, one is a passing mention and the independence of the other is questionable. Undisputedly, they are not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't what we do here dispute about if this passes GNG? There were two more secondary sources discussed. What again were the benefits of deletion for Wikipedia compared to at least a merge in a case of doubt about GNG? Daranios (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect with a very selective merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons Redirects are cheap, while there are insufficient references in reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG it is a plausible search term, a small amount of additional material can be incorporated there. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Not that I think we need more than one list of DnD monsters, but that's a discussion for another time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting IceFishing as blocked sock. Sandstein 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter E. Hoffman Jr.[edit]

Walter E. Hoffman Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Biography of an airline pilot and operator of smalltown aviation services, "referenced" only to his paid inclusion death notice on the self-published website of a funeral home rather than any evidence of notability-supporting reliable source coverage about him in media. As always, simply owning a business is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees a person a biographical article just because you can offer technical verification that he existed -- the notability test is the depth and range and volume of journalistic coverage he did or didn't receive about his business career in media, and is not fulfilled by just showing a paid death notice. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Wally was a well-known local character, and I have included more references in the press and on the web to his airline and his airpark and resort (which first got me interested in this, since I fly over it all the time). Dclunie (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC) dclunie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dclunie (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe that User:Dclunie was acting in good faith when they created the page, but the subject appears to fail WP:BIO.IphisOfCrete (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post local-color articles, we need substantial reliable sources and for people of local interest we need articles outside of hyper locals. Not everyone who gets an article in a hyper local paper is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added some material and sources, primarily, however, my argument is that he established two companies, a small airline and, separately, a honeymoon hotel with its own airstrip , both have articles and I readily found sources form which both articles can be expanded (I have not carried out these expansions). I do see enough here to keep - (totally apart from coverage of the former Eagle Scout who started killing Pennsylvania State Troopers and went to ground in the abandoned hanger of the abandoned honeymoon hotel air field where he was found after a massive manhunt.)IceFishing (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass. Maybe redirect Pocono Airlines? Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL. I'm not seeing anything that remotely could be considered notable. This is an ordinary businessman who worked part-time as a pilot, or alternately, who used his day job to subsidize his hobby that never went anywhere. Bearian (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There seems to be enough here for an article to pass GNG though barely. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you decide, thank you all for your thoughtful consideration (and IceFishing for your interesting additional reference about how full-time aircrew have a lot of spare time to moonlight). It has certainly educated me on what Wikipedia is and is not, and I accept that even though the concept of notability (or utility of any kind) is hard to quantify, that there is a marginal cost to adding an entry to Wikipedia, which is resource constrained. Previously I had thought that the more information in Wikipedia the better, no matter how narrow the audience might be (i.e., a sort of Encyclopedia Galactica containing all information about everything). I now understand that it is not nearly that simple. As someone whose day job involves standards and document maintenance, it is also interesting to be even peripherally involved in your consensus, decision making and discussion tracking process. Rest assured that I am not dissuaded from continuing to make my minuscule contributions in the fields with which I am engaged (Aviation and Medicine), and will try and research and apply the correct procedures more effectively in future. Dclunie (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless there's something interesting that I'm missing, it doesn't satisfy GNG. Dorama285 18:57 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No independent articles about the man himself. I'm not all that familiar with aviation notability guidelines, but I'm also wondering if Birchwood-Pocono Airpark and Pocono Airlines should also be deleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shafiullah Quadri[edit]

Syed Shafiullah Quadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no significant source to Pass WP:GNG The fact that he contested an election does not prove his notability,Fails WP:NPOL Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  17:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A Google search turned up one mention of the subject on a news site. All other mentions were on PR sites. There is no significant coverage to show notability. Thus, it fails WP:GNG and does not pass WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep He is the elected candidate as Member of the Legislative Assembly (India) from Rajendranagar Constituency in Hyderabad. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 00:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi@Authordom:,:Could you please provide any source here that validates your point..?-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  According to this source he received 0.16% of the vote in 2014 and did not stand in 2018. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]