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. WP:SNOW keep. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Littoral rights[edit]

Littoral rights (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)

This is more a dictionary definition than notable article in accordance with WP:GNG. Only source points to a dictionary, and is almost like an article on definition of Apple sourcing Webster dictionary PenulisHantu (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. A Google Scholar search gets more than 500 hits for "littoral rights", and the first page of results turns up several articles that have the term in their title and appear to be primarily about the topic, so there is definitely room for an encyclopedic article on the topic. BD2412 T 01:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is certainly encyclopaedic although the current article is little more than a definition. Not my area so I won’t try to expand it but there are plenty of sources if anyone wants to do so. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a legal term of some significance, often paired with riparian water rights, and that's the littoral truth. Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is certainly notable but the article needs to read beyond just a definition. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article needs work but the subject is notable. Alex-h (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per BD2412 and Clarityfiend. Mujinga (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. This is a notable legal concept, akin to riparian rights although distinct. 16:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BEFORE and common sense. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Oh lord.. this is a WP:PILEON WP:SNOW Wm335td (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's snowing in AFD land. It is a WP:PILEON WP:SNOW Certainly article can and should be improved. Speaking as a lawyer, this is one of the clearest cases of a poorly thought out and considered WP:AFD. WP:Notability WP:GNG WP:BEFORE. If you bothered to click on any of the links for searches at the top of this page, you should have known this is silly. What a waste of valuable editor time! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:25, 28 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Banat[edit]

Ali Banat (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)

insufficient evidence of notability --one obit, one minor article DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:

• "Who was Ali Banat, the Muslim philanthropist who recently passed away?" from Metro
• "Muslim millionaire turned humanitarian Ali Banat dies from ‘gift’ of cancer" from Metro
• "Why Ali Banat had called cancer a gift?" from The Siasat Daily
• "Ali Banat: the man with the Gift of Cancer" from Daily Times
• "Australian Muslim millionaire turned humanitarian Ali Banat dies" from SBS
• "A Muslim millionaire who gave all his money and sports cars to charity dies from cancer" from The Standard
• 'We are not supporting terrorists': Islamic charity founder claims the Commonwealth Bank shut his accounts because he 'helps Muslims' from The Daily Mail
• "A Millionaire Gave Away All His Wealth To The Needy & His Reason For Doing So Is Really Inspiring" from MensXP.com
• "Muslim charity MATW boycotts big bank after account closure" from The Daily Telegraph

And on and on... Missvain (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Missvain's sources, which clearly establish notability. AfD is not cleanup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm convinced, withdrawing AfD.' DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Keep I was disappointed to not find anything in The Age of the SMH, although perhaps not surpised! I would have been happier if there was something in main stream media other than just a brief obit in SBS, but this pushed me from a weak keep to a keep. My main concern remaining is is it "Banat" or "MATW" which is actually the notable subject here? Aoziwe (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT nomination withdrawn. Wm335td (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Has significant coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 14:06, 25 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) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Raulerson[edit]

Jaclyn Raulerson (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)

Raulerson is not notable. Winning Miss Florida is not a default sign of notability. Only one source is maybe an indepdent third party reliable source. Her own college newspaper is not such nor is IMDb. The last sources looks likely to be too much of a human interest story to add towards passing GNG. My online search shows more sources not adding towards GNG. These include one about her marriage from the neighborhood page of the Plant City paper, and the staff file from her current employer. There is nothing coming even close to showing Raulerson as passing in any way the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:

• "Jaclyn Raulerson of Plant City Vies for Miss America This Week" from The Ledger
• "UCF student crowned Miss Florida wants to focus on helping sick children" from the Orlando Sentinel
• "From This Day: Jaclyn Raulerson and Jarod Dicks" from the Plant City Observer
• "Her Crowning Glory" from The Tampa Tribune
• "A Knight's Quest for Miss America" from UCF Today
• "UCF's Raulerson Crowned Miss Florida: 'An Honor'" from The Orlando Sentinel
• "City honors Raulerson for Miss Florida crown" from The Tampa Tribune
• "Miss Florida hopeful gets charity honored" from The Tampa Tribune
• Miss Teen Heart Crowned" from The Tampa Tribune
• "Miss Florida shares travails with bullying" from The Tampa Tribune
• "UCF Student is Miss Florida" from UCF Today
• Tips and tactics to bully-proof your children" from Orlando Family Magazine

and on and on... Missvain (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Many of those sources are so local they would never add towards GNG, or are human interest stories in hyper local papers, or are the publication of the college she attended at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nominator should stop AfDing and PRODing the articles of multiple women until Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Beauty_pageants:_Award_with_own_WP_article_=_"well-known_and_significant_award_or_honor" rules on his disputed claim that a "Miss Florida" winner who got significant independent press coverage is not notable. Such awards have historically been an important source of scholarships and recognition for young women. The press coverage of such contests is much more intense and widely read than coverage for many sports awards that confer notability on young men. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BEFORE - plenty of sources from around Florida. She was a Miss America finalist. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG per the numerous sources above. Another frivolous nomination by this user. Might be time for some further action against him. Smartyllama (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Sympathy with the nominator as I did not easily find RS and certainly not much to fill out a bio...Just WP:BARE. I guess I can say she barely passes WP:ANYBIO with her Miss Florida 2010 and her Top 7 placement in the Miss America competition. Edit: Good work by Missvain listing the local coverage. Wm335td (talk) 22:02, 28 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) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. John Launer[edit]

S. John Launer (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:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – I couldn't find anything but the Variety obit that provided "ample" coverage. He seems to have been in so many television shows and films, often playing authority figures. It's just the significant coverage stinks. Missvain (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as it technically passes muster. Played in some significant films and to have been on Perry Mason for nine years was huge. Wouldn't surprise me if an offline source has a little more about him. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a bunch of mainly uncredited roles does not add up to notability. Also one source is never enough on its own to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Having a Variety obituary is notable. ミラP 17:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added two sources, one of which is an on-set accident that he was in (not tremendously significant coverage, but relevant to his biography) and the other of which is a review that provides coverage of his performance in a play. It took me some digging through the many newspaper mentions of him to find these things and I am hopeful there is other coverage out there as well. Let me be clear that I think it's enough for a keep as is. Consequently I am removing the "weak" out of my "keep." DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Prolific character actor, who played supporting roles in many notable films and TV series. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:15, 26 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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mynampally rohit[edit]

Mynampally rohit (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. All of the sources used in the article are the same paid-for press release (as seen by this disclosure at the bottom of the Hindustan Times version) with slightly different wording. Likely either a paid for WP:PROMO article or a vanity page. GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Coverage appears to be exclusively self-manufactured. Google brings up many results, but as the nominator observed, all appear to be derivative of the same press release. I just clicked through 5 that read almost identically, with the only difference being the adjective in front of "horseback rider." Is he versatile, professional, flexible, or adventurous as a rider? I'm not sure, but I don't believe he's notable. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nothing much to add after the statements of GPL93, and Skeletor3000. Whatever I could find were PR/paid articles. Subject clearly fails WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. I am not sure if it is a vanity article, or promo. But given his career as "travel influencer" (whatever the heck it is), I think he is trying to promote his tours n travel "consultancy" (not agency), or again; just a vanity article establishing himself as "experienced bareback horse riding with cats on saddle traveller" (this makes more sense than the article). —usernamekiran (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete despite several references, this reads more like a promotional material that's short of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too promotional and lacking quality refs. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. "Travel influencer" is nonsense, and a neologism at best. This page is a jumble of poor citations, neologisms, PR, and run of the mill coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Please, not another "influencer". This one with some 23K followers, which is something anyone can buy for about $25. Can we depricate or blacklist in.news.yahoo.com, m.dailyhunt.in, hindustantimes.com, ibtimes.co.in, latestly.com, mid-day.com. They're all garbage. Vexations (talk) 23:45, 28 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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Team New England[edit]

Team New England (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)

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, with tag in place since 2008. The team has apparently been affiliated with 3 separate academic institutions, so there is no clear target for merge or redirect. The bulk of the article is apparently original research. Coverage consists of the expected variety from campus newspapers, with name mentions in other sources, such as Wired. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Wired source (and I agree that it's something of a namedrop, of shaky notability) is the only G-news hit for "Team New England" + solar. A more general Google search turns up nothing but the aforementioned namedrops and various Wiki mirrors of this article. No trace of this club exists at any of the schools listed in the article. The first source is disqualified as primary. Beyond all of that, the list of "Races and accomplishments" is full of chest-thumping puffery, with some outright untruths (for instance, their claim of winning PPIHC is a lie). Beyond that, all the content of the article comes from an anon IP and two SPAs, for whom this was their collective complete Wikipedia involvement. Ravenswing 02:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yep, that pretty much sums it up. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:46, 24 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fahmid-ur-Rahman[edit]

Fahmid-ur-Rahman (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 writer. Fails every criteria listed on WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. Doesn't qualify for WP:ANYBIO also. None of author books is notable. All references listed in the article are primary or fails WP:RS. I did a web search but didn't found anything. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As author-editor of the proposed article-for-deletion, I absolutely agree that all sources given in the article are primary; there is a dearth of published secondary sources. However, the fact that the author has published several books as listed in the bibliography is surely indicative of WP:GNG, and impetus for further research. --~Mohammad Hossain~ 21:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, GNG require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and publishing several books doesn’t pass GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG looks a little less relevant here than WP:NAUTHOR. To show an WP:NAUTHOR pass, though, you'd generally need to find several reviews of the subject's books. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the observation regarding WP:NAUTHOR. I can look up for reviews on the subject of the said author's books.--~Mohammad Hossain~ 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two reviews and a link to a recent article of the writer in a popular journal, all in Bangla I am afraid, which list some biographical details, including names of some works. --~Mohammad Hossain~ 12:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on adding some more content in the page from some of the sources listed.--~Mohammad Hossain~ 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding non-notable &/or non reliable sources like Punorpath.com, shoncharon.com, Pathchokro.com doesn't prove notability. You need source like prothom alo, daily star etc. also note one line, mention from those site won't consider notable. Whatever you consider WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, subject should be fulfill the basic criteria (received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources ... ... and independent of the subject) to be notable. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I have not found any sources on the author from either of the newspapers you mention, Prothom Alo or Daily Star. Punorpath is a hardcopy popular journal with printed hard copies. The website link was given for more accessible reference. I will add further updates on secondary source material if and when I find them.--~Mohammad Hossain~ 17:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly. Perhaps there are sources in Bangla? If so, I'm happy to review and re-consider my suggestion. Missvain (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain:Having read his work, I was surprised that there is such a lack of coverage. The subject may have coverage in hard to come by print material, which is unavailable online. Most of his books were published in Bangladesh at a time when there is increasing government surveillance of the digital domain in Bangladesh, which may partially explain why such secondary material does not exist; he is critical of the established historiography on the region. Perhaps, and hopefully so, we shall not be having such a conversation on notability in a few years time. Thanks for your helpful feedback and valuable observation. Much love! --~Mohammad Hossain~ 05:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inadequately sourced to demonstrate notability and Mohammad Hossain's admission that better sourcing does not exist seals it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:35, 29 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan Rahman[edit]

Rayan Rahman (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 lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG & also per WP:ANYBIO he does not scale through. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG. I'm happy to reconsider if reliable secondary sources covering the subject significantly are presented in Bangla. Missvain (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL. One of tens of thousands of business persons who want to alleviate poverty while getting something for themselves, whether profits or publicity. We are not a free web-host. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 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 delete. Sandstein 13:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yamai Devi, Rashin Ahmednagar[edit]

Yamai Devi, Rashin Ahmednagar (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 my PROD, I cannot find anything on it to make it considered WP:NOTE. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- If kept, rename to something like Jagdamba Mata temple, Rashin. Nevertheless, it is said to be based on a book, but what book is not stated. We regularly delete articles on local churches as NN. I see nothing in this article to demonstrate that it is WP notable. Hence I lean towards delete, but I do not know enough to vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it was I who challenged the PROD, simply because I had intended to copy it to my own space before it disappeared but forgot, so had to call it back. As it stands it's probably not possible to salvage, but it's quite a well-known temple and I would be surprised if there were not other sources besides the book mentioned. I don't have the time to look now, so would not oppose deletion, but with the possibility of re-creation later if more does turn up. Ingratis (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to moving it into Draft-space. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but no need - I don't work with Drafts. Ingratis (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT and start again. No easily available sourcing to even make a start at fixing it. Mattg82 (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails general notability guidelines – at least in English. I'm happy to re-evaluate if other language sources exist. Missvain (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT and my standards for houses of worship. The huge amount of work to fix this essay is greater than the apparent lack of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin names of mountains[edit]

List of Latin names of mountains (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)

Simple translation list. Fails WP:LISTN. There's also some possible WP:OR in the list, as some of the entries are marked with "?". See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin names of lakes. Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete About time for a bulk AFD. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY, especially when half of these are the same as they're known in English... Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete “Wikipedia is not a dictionary” is a clear policy, and this entire list was literally copied straight out of a dictionary.--Pontificalibus 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary,WP:DICTIONARY Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Our readers know where to find it on Google. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 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. Whilst referencing for the article could be improved, the subject has been commented as being notable. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Coppin[edit]

Tyler Coppin (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:ENTERTAINER. The subject has a large body of work: however, his roles appear to be walk-on parts or as a background artist. I'm not convinced that any of the awards listed are significant enough to demonstrate notability. Looking at the edit history, I'm also concerned that the main editor may have a conflict of interests (he was he of only two editors to add any content to the recently-deleted page for a one-man play written and performed by the subject). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He's got roles in at least three notable movies: Winchester, Predestination and The Death and Life of Otto Bloom. On each of those pages, he's listed somewhere around #8 in the cast -- supporting roles, but not walk-ons. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – For Toughpigs' rationale and he's also in Shakespeare in Love in Melbourne and it's gained national attention in Australia.[1][2] He also writes plays, which have been reviewed in various mainstream publications.[3][4][5][6] There's a lot out there if you know where to look. Missvain (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is broad and sustained coverage, including performance reviews and bio studies in major mainstream media publications, eg SMH and The Age. Aoziwe (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above arguments. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the article is properly referenced. The article is almost completely unreferenced. If good coverage of his work exists, it should be cited in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST says that notability isn't determined by the quality of the article. If there is significant RS coverage, then the subject is notable, and the article should be improved, not deleted. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His career is very notable on stage, probably less so on screen, and he's won a Helpmann Award. Substantial coverage of Coppin in the context of his solo play Lyrebird: Tales of Helpmann easily seen by googling that and his name together. Lack of referencing is insufficient for deletion. Boneymau (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Some more sources—especially for his awards—would be good, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:43, 26 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Vigeland[edit]

Emma Vigeland (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)

Delete as nominator Vigeland does not meet notability standards established by WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. The article only lists four sources, including a dead SF Gate article/video and a user-contributed Medium article. I will remind fans of Vigeland's YouTube content or Twitter punditry that her followers or subscribers do not automatically merit a Wikipedia article. KidAd (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. There are no RS in the article. In case anyone gets confused, the "Hill" sources are links to clips from a web-show hosted by the Hill where the subject of the article has appeared. They are not news reports by the Hill. As there is no RS on this person, it's impossible to write a proper article. There was a clear consensus to delete this page in 2017, and there has been no RS coverage of her since then to justify keeping this time around. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for Ms. Vigeland. Happy to make it a soft delete in case things change. Missvain (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL and Too soon. I don't see anything she's done other than what thousands of other progressives have done online: criticize leaders of both parties. How does that pass WP:GNG? I don't see a man bites dog case here. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 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 delete. Thank you everyone for your additional participation. I am deleting this based on the arguments presented, including by Blue Square Thing and others. Perhaps someday he'll be eligible for an article. Thanks again for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavya Bishnoi[edit]

Bhavya Bishnoi (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)

Previously deleted as an attempted politician who failed WP:N. I G4'd a re-creation, but an argument was made he passes WP:NCRICKET because he played in The University Match (cricket). I don't buy that, but figured it was worth offering a forum to discuss it, as it may make the G4 deletion kinda shaky. WilyD 09:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:CRIN guidelines by having played first-class cricket, the highest domestic level of cricket in England. Recent AfD's, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Balac have kept cricketers who have played a lone first-class match. StickyWicket (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)— Note to the closing admin: StickyWicket (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 21:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NCRICKET. This article was earlier deleted through this discussion as a politician or his son. Now it is back as a cricketer who just played one inter college match. Also there is no independent coverage about him as a cricketer, actually there is no coverage of him at all as a cricketer except in the following link [7]. If there is coverage about him then that is about politics and his father and grand father. Also why should a experienced editor write a article about him as I see other editors who wrote this before were blocked for [8] which looked like paid editing. Finally as a cricketer he does not pass Wikipedia NCRICKET and GNG. 42.106.193.161 (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He does pass WP:NCRIC as the Varsity Match is a first-class match. The creator of this article has created many articles about cricket players, I think it is bad faith to accuse him of paid editing. In the past week he has created a number of other articles about Oxford University cricketers, this seems to be no different. Spike 'em (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. How does an IP just find an AfD, I always find that curious. Spike 'em, didn't you know Alnod Boger paid me 80 years in advance to write his article ;) In response to the question "why should a experienced editor write a article about him", well because that's what I do on here, I write cricket articles. StickyWicket (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to @AssociateAffiliate: The first source you have added Hindustan Times has no link to the source. Could you please provide that? Also how did you make the connection that this individual is the cricketer and the politician and not two different people with same name, could you provide a source to that? Last of all to your question where did a IP find this AFD is that I had speedy this page and there is nothing to be surprised. 42.106.217.125 (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added ref to what looks like the article from Hindustan Times, which describes BB as a 26 year old (in April 2019) former Delhi youth cricketer who attended St Anthony's, Oxford, which all ties in with the information on the cricket pages used as sources. CricketArchive lists various Delhi U15s games on his record. The team sheets for Varsity Matches usually list the colleges the players attend should that be needed. Spike 'em (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had nominated this article the last time around as it failed WP:NPOL. I still feel it does not pass the criteria for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Another disconcerting thing here is the repeated recreation of this page. Their seems to be a concerted effort to recreate this page. (Note:I don't mean to cast any aspersions on the current creator as he/she seem to be long term trusted editors). - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 21:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Given that nothing whatsoever has changed since the last AfD, which closed with consensus to delete, I'm not sure why G4 doesn't apply. If anything, this should have gone through DRV. Looking at the sources, I can't see that the previous AfD got this wrong. Reyk _YO! 10:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I had G4'd it, but the argument was made that the new version asserts he passes WP:NCRICKET, which wasn't made or discussed in the previous AfD. So, although I'm not convinced he does, I found it a plausible enough assertion to buy that G4 may not apply. The choice of here or DRV was perhaps somewhat arbitrary, but usually DRV is not posited as the place to consider new arguments, so ultimately I figured this was the better venue (but I don't think it actually makes a significant difference which path gets taken of those two). WilyD 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not convinced that the modern Varsity match can be considered a match played at the "top-level of domestic cricket". Perhaps in the 1920s, but it is very clearly a very, very long way below any other English first-class standard nowadays - including the "friendly" matches played at the start of the season. I'm not convinced at all that this meets NCRIC - but then I increasingly tend to think that NCRIC is a total waste of bytes anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if the University match is first class I don't think it's enough to pass the notability guidelines. WP:ATHLETE says the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Passing WP:NCRIC therefore at best only suggests that sources passing the GNG are likely to exist. The GNG is the ultimate standard, rather than the SNG. While the SNG has a lot of value in cases where the best sources may not be accessible, if he has notability based on a recent cricket match in the UK then sources passing the GNG would be available easily on the internet, and there aren't any. There are some discussing his failed run for political office in India, but we don't usually keep articles on that basis and I don't see any reason to do so here. Hut 8.5 19:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC, which confers a presumption of notability. Johnlp (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Courtesy ping @Cesdeva, Johnpacklambert, and Bearcat: from the first AFD. ミラP 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 16:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If he passes the notability for cricketeers that is clearly flawed. Cricket does not evidently require a "first class" match to be fully pro. This tells me we should stop treating playing in one first class match a sign of notability and start requiring actual showing of multiple sources, instead of listings on directories of cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this was implicit in my comment above, but I'll be clear about it. On the grounds that the University Match in the 21st century is nowhere close to the top level of domestic cricket in the UK, so fails CRIN. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per John, and Hut. SNG does not always trump GNG. Sometimes we have to stop taking the policies to its letter, and use our common sense. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:30, 22 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 merge to CPAN. Closing as a merge and redirect. Looks like the subject just isn't passing our requirements just yet for his own article. Missvain (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kennedy (programmer)[edit]

Adam Kennedy (programmer) (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)

This is a procedural nomination requested by 155.143.16.103 (talk · contribs). The nomination rationale is "Every open source contributor does not require an article". I am neutral Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nominated before in 2009, WP:Articles for deletion/Adam Kennedy (Programmer). Mattg82 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to CPAN, new section Notable people. There would seem to be no doubt that the subject is important and "notable" within the Perl community, and is a likely search term, but I cannot find sufficient to satisfy GNG. More than half the current article is about "Perl stuff", so trim and merge the article to a new section in CPAN. Aoziwe (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would claim that Adam's work is as significant as Damian Conway, another Australian active in the Perl community with a Wiki page. Adam's recent work at Kaggle and now at Apple are significant and in addition to his open source contributions. This level of achievement is fairly uncommon for Australian IT people, and worthy of note. Happy to expand article if needed. Teraplane (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide a few of the new references you would use to expand the article, you might get me to change my !vote. I did not recognise any that might bolster up a GNG claim, but then I might not have looked sufficiently. Aoziwe (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have expanded recent career section, which is not Perl focused. Teraplane (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that was not much at all? And, importantly, speaker bios are normally provided by the speaker to the seminar? So hardly IRS? Aoziwe (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find, maybe it's not enough. However, article depth is similar to Adam's peers such as Brian_d_foy, chromatic etc with no AfDs for them. So feel it's appropriate on that basis. As the link I added states, he can’t talk about much of his work as it's propreitary. So someone in this position won't have alot of material about him on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 06:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to CPAN, new section Notable people. I concur with the reasoning presented by Aoziwe. Most content on him is in technical documentation or self-published, but he is also referred to as making a notable contribution in scholarly writings here Perl Cannot Be Parsed: A Formal Proof which shows some notability in this narrow group.--23mason (talk) 14:31, 29 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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Game Factory Interactive[edit]

Game Factory Interactive (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)

Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY. BEFORE shows little but few mentions in passing/press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV - sourcing is terrible to run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HeroZona Foundation[edit]

HeroZona Foundation (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)

Advertising; advertising for a valuable cause, but still advertising. There's no way to fix this, because the notability is based only on local sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - laudable but ordinary and local charity. We would not expect that the Girl Scouts, or Ronald McDonald House, or NAACP, or the United Methodist church, would be force to act as web-host for another Charity. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 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 redirect to Hindu Sena. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Gupta[edit]

Vishnu Gupta (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)

All coverage of Gupta is in the context of his activities with Hindu Sena. I think that we should redirect this article to there. Bringing this to AfD rather than edit warring over it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I support the proposed redirect by Rosguill, especially after doing my due diligence at reviewing sources. Missvain (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge article into Hindu Sena. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:36, 23 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 delete. Deleting! Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

猫 シ Corp.[edit]

猫 シ Corp. (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)

Makes good music but fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG with zero third-party coverage, and article sourcing reflects such. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Cat Corp. or another appropriate name in the Roman alphabet. The current name violates the naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing to establish (or even claim) notability. It also smacks of marketing-speak (which could be fixed). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT, WP:COAT, WP:MILL, WP:SPAM and WP:GNG. A brief look by any reader could see this is a mess. The name of the article is not in the Roman alphabet. It's a run-on essay that would take hours to fix into an article. It's clear that it's not about some notable corporation, but some dude, a rando on the Internet. Spam in 2007 could not excused, but in 2020 we can't assume good faith when we see this very obvious spam. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 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 delete. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Mogensen[edit]

Rasmus Mogensen (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 significant coverage found. No major gallery showings found (all appear to be relatively small galleries with no independent coverage of exhibitions). He is listed on a marketing team for a single campaign that won an Epica Award, meaning he may meet a single criterion of WP:ANYBIO. These awards are unfamiliar to me, but several other agencies and individuals who have received them do not have their own articles. Since the article has been tagged for sourcing and notability issues for so long with minimal improvements, I'm initiating a deletion discussion as recommended in the "Additional criteria" section of WP:BIO. There is relevant previous discussion on the article's talk page, but it operates under dated criteria for WP:ARTIST. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete present form looks more like a promotion/ ads unless more independent and substantial material is added. 10 years since creation of page should be sufficient time for that to happen. PenulisHantu (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: When I visited Worldcat to see if it knew of any book of his stuff, I didn't see any; but I did find that MoFA Houston has material by him: OCLC 1089319471. I don't understand what it is, and I wonder about its significance. -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Le Book 2007 reference, I believe, is nothing more than self promo for the creative world, Instagram in paper form if you like. No other WP:SIGCOV. Mattg82 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:SNOW. Clearly fails general notability as well as artistic. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 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 delete. As was already the consensus before the relist. Sandstein 13:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Course of employment[edit]

Course of employment (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)

Longstanding unsourced stub, apart from the unwikified attribution to a Law Dictionary. Mattg82 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article does not establish the subject's notability.TH1980 (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to creating a proper article on the subject. It looks like the topic is notable and the subject of multiple scholarly articles:

• Arising Out and in Course of Employment, 4 Va. L. Reg. 804 (1919).
• Aharon Barak, The Servant's Course of Employment, 1 Isr. L. Rev. 8 (1966).
• Ray A. Brown, Arising out of and in the Course of the Employment in Workmen's Compensation Laws--Part IV, 8 Wis. L. Rev. 217 (1932).
• Marvin E. Duckworth, Injuries Arising out of and In the Course of the Employment, 30 Drake L. Rev. 861 (1980).

There are others, but these are the few I've bothered to look at the text for to confirm the treatment goes beyond mere title. (A whole bunch more are simple case notes, discussing a then-recent case or two that construe the term; those don't carry much weight for me.)

But in its present form it's just a dicdef, and someone who cares more than I do would need to do some substantial writing to make it an actual article to meet the "Keep" threshhold. TJRC (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the issue is significantly notable, but agree the article currently lacks sources. As one example of notability, Australia's High Court had an interesting case a few years back where the issue was considered, in the context of a public servant who had claimed workers compensation when a light fitting fell on her while she was having sex with a friend in a motel booked for her overnight by her employer for a work trip. She succeeded all the way up to the High Court, which overturned the previous decisions and found it was not in the "course of employment". Bookscale (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom - Article is not supported by reliable sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the issue is more whether they are available (which they certainly are). Bookscale (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:TNT and WP:CHEAP. This not a good enough foundation to write a readable article. Something could be written, but this is an unsourced essay. To avoid losing the article history, I suggest redirecting to Respondeat superior, which is the ultimate consequence of this doctrine, rather than Agency law or Employment law. Thank you for re-listing. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sticking with my "Delete" !vote, above. A redirect to Respondeat superior would be inappropriate. That doctrine is about when acts of an employee can be attributed to the employer. The usage in this article — and more importantly, in most published sources discussing it — is about a very different concept, about when an injury is sufficiently work-related to be covered by worker's comp insurance. If we must redirect, workers' compensation is a better target, but since it has very little on the concept being redirected, that's not likely to be a helpful redirect either; WP:PLA.

Missvain, to clarify why my !vote is for "delete" despite the topic being notable: the only thing worth keeping in the article is the title. Yes, it's a notable topic, and there could be an article written on this notable topic. but this article isn't it. My thinking is along the lines of WP:TNT: "if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article." TJRC (talk) 23:55, 23 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 delete. Fails GNG and WP:MUSIC. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future the Prince[edit]

Future the Prince (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)

WP:BLP of a musician and manager, not properly sourced as the subject of enough substantive media coverage to clear the inclusion criteria for either role. Of the six footnotes here, #1 is a 44-word blurb about him in a listicle; #2 and #3 are both one-off glancing mentions of his name in articles that aren't about him; #4 is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on a Tumblr, which is not a reliable source at all; and #6 is a short blurb which is covering him solely in the context of having had something stolen from him rather than in the context of accomplishing anything relevant to our notability standards for musicians or business managers. The only source that actually might be worth something is #5 (Billboard) -- but it's paywalled, so I can't verify how much it's worth, and even just the most basic GNG pass requires quite a bit more than just one source that's worth anything. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they exist — but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage, to justify inclusion. Mattg82 (talk)

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 Vorenus and Pullo. Closing as a redirect. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titus Pullo (Rome character)[edit]

Titus Pullo (Rome character) (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. TTN (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vorenus and Pullo where the fictional version of this character is already mentioned. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vorenus and Pullo per Aoba47. The fictional characters are based on these. Would suggest a merge but everything that would be merged is there already so redirect and merge are functionally the same thing. — Sirfurboy (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not keep -- I cannot believe we need such a long article in a fictional character in a not very notable TV series. Redirect somewhere. An alternative might be to an article on the series or its characters. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 26 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. Keeping this one as it's common for us to have articles like this. Feel free to improve and remove any concerns regarding "copy and paste" (copyright?). Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Canadian honours[edit]

2012 Canadian honours (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 WP:LISTPEOPLE. A list containing mostly non-notable people, copy-and-pasted from the sources provided. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Hello,

This is the second time that you have send me your "warning" to delete 2012 Canadian honours page. I have written to you yesterday, someone else has deleted your actions (which was not me) and I have written on the page's talk page. This was my argument:

I would like to advocate why it would be unfortunate to delete this page:

• Wikipedia has published all British New Year Honours as far back as 1890
• Wikipedia has published all British Birthday Honours as far back as 1860
• Wikipedia has published many Australians honours lists
• Wikipedia has published many New Zealand honours lists.

((Honours Lists))

((Australian Honours Lists))

((New Zealand honours lists))

I believe that my Canadian honours list pages are honouring the work done by other Wikipedians and allows Canadians to view our own honours lists without have to dig them out from the Canada Gazette. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You never state what your arguement is to delete the page that I have worked hard to create for Wikipedia. No other honours lists seems to have this warning, therefore I would like to know what the problem is with this page. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ctjj.stevenson: please see my response on my talk page. Sorry for saying that you removed the AfD notice; I didn't see that someone else had. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've formatted the above discussions, and un-transcluded the templates. @Ctjj.stevenson: That page is insanely large, and appears to be copied and pasted from somewhere. If it was copied from somewhere else, care needs to be take to make sure it isn't violating copyright. It may need to be split to avoid being far too long. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These honours lists are widespread across the Commonwealth realms (United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada). The two WP:LISTPEOPLE criteria are generally met: inclusion verified by reliable source (such as Canada Gazette), and notability by WP:BIO which includes "person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (by definition of admission to the Order). Regarding notability of the lists, in each of these Commonwealth countries the full list receives significant media coverage and often verbatim publication of the list itself, as well as detailed coverage of many of the recipients particularly in the higher tiers or with regional or cultural focus (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom). With the copyright question, that may need to be looked at for the Canadian situation, however in Australia, the honours lists are released under CC-BY 3.0 so the list and citation statements can be published under this licence. --Canley (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Canley's rationale. These lists are really useful indexes: they're widely published in reliable sources due to being of significant public interest and because many of them are people who meet our general notability standards (regardless of whether they presently have articles), it allows readers interersted in the awards to click through to our biographical articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:11, 26 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. Few arguments have been made as to why this article needs to be deleted, with this primarily appearing as a content dispute regarding a split or fork from Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. It appears to contain different information than the main article, making the repeatedly suggested "delete after merging" very dubious from an attribution perspective as per WP:MAD. There's not a strong consensus about the best way to portray this information across these articles, but there's a significant consensus that the content should be preserved in some form, and minimal actual argument as to why having a separate article in this style is an actual issue. ~ mazca ^talk 01:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad (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)

Same article already exists Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  00:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is not the same as the Grand Mufti section of Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. It expands on the information that is there. IF the information in that section is determined to be enough to cover the Grand Muftiship then this should be redirected to Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar#Grand Mufti, in either case it should not be deleted. ~ GB fan 00:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar selectively. I would say that the individual's position as "Grand Mufti" is not universally accepted among Indian muslims. It is better to state such information on a single bio article. The current content of the article anyway is a detailed list of trips, talk and receptions which I don't think needs to be covered in such minute detail.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after merging anything useful into Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. This article is an unnecessary content fork of that one. No need for a redirect as the article title isn't a likely search term (there's already a redirect on the much more plausible Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad) Neiltonks (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep The article is not the same as the Grand Mufti section of the article, Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. I think the article is Eligible to keep. Meets WP:GNG Authordom (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt The Muftiship and Grand Muftiship of the person is a fake. Please check the article, Grand Mufti of India. The Hindu Nation (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)User blocked as a sock puppet. ~ GB fan 11:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the person's article. It's just a timeline right now (and not a very good one), the relevant details can be copied over as prose. Ravensfire (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a timeline of the current Grand Mufti of India on highlights of the major events that took place under his grand muftiship. This article is notable, seems to pass the notability guidelines pretty easily, with numerous multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject and is not eligible to delete or merge with another article. Sabith1990 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think this nomination is part of a series of bad faith works by a group of socks targeting notable articles of Islam in India like: I, II and III, and supporting some non notable articles like: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII. This is not a good faith nomination. The article is a notable timeline of the major activities of the current Grand Mufti of India and the article is meets the GNG, significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, as demonstrated by cites in the article. I don't think the article is eligible for merging and there is no reason to delete it. [[User:Akbarali|Akbarali]] ([[User talk:Akbarali|talk]]) (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear @Akbarali: Please don't say unnecessary things. why are you saying this is targeting a religion? I have no doubt about his notability, especially after doing due diligence at reviewing sources but there is no need for multiple articles: Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar and Grand Mufti of India that contain the same content. -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  07:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not contain the same content as Grand Mufti of India and Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar articles. Authordom (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is surely the timeline of Grand Mufti of India highlighting the important events occurring in his tenure . This article is undoubtfully notable, seems to pass the notability guidelines pretty easily, with numerous multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject and is not acceptable to remove or merge with another one. I strongly support that this page should be maintained as the article. Luqmankvk (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no sufficient argument has been made for deletion, OP appears confused about why they are even nominating the page for deletion. It appears people are trying to use AfD to play domestic politics which just isn't kosher. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Horse Eye Jack: Nominator says "Same article already exists" which logically means WP:CONTENTFORK, like Neiltonks mentioned above. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You and I have different conceptions of logic then, the articles certainly don't contain the same content. I don't think this an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK either. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Horse Eye Jack: Kindly see lead of this article, and Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar#Grand Mufti. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after merging anything useful into Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar, like Neiltonks said above. Everything from this article can be explained in the target article adequetely, and appropriately. Most of the entries are single sentence statements which provide no conext at all. eg: April 6 – Trip to Singapore., same goes for Malaysia (twice), April 19 – Received a Mega reception in Abu Dhabi., and Oman (1 May), 26 May - Received a reception in Bangalore, "Mega" reception in Kuwait, Oman, Abu Dhabi, and few others; and April 22 – Grand Mufti condemned on the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. The entire lead of the article is already covered in the target article. Rest of the article is coverage of his receptions, statements, and very few notable/important stuff. All of that can be easily covered in the target article.
  After the lead, there is only one section: "Timeline". The intro for that section is highlights of the major events that took place under his muftiship. But there are like only two (or maybe three) "major events that took under under his muftiship" including his initiation. Rest of the events are like day-to-day activites, dinners, or meetings. Nothing major.
  The important content should be merged with target article. If the target article becomes very big with time, then it should be WP:SPLIT. Till then there is no need to have this extra article. And like Neiltonks said: no need for a redirect as the article title isn't a likely search term (there's already a redirect on the much more plausible Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad). —usernamekiran (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  update (I thought I had already included in my rationale above): Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar was sworn in as mufti on 24 February 2019. Currently, a very big chunk of his biographical article contains his statements/activities after him becoming the mufti. If that content is moved to this article, then the BLP article will become very short; if not moved then this article will become redundant content fork. In either scenario, this article is unnecessary, as the content can be covered in target article very adequately/comfortably. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:31, 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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flinx[edit]

Flinx (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)

Fictional character. Fancruft, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. No indications of any reliable secondary sources treating this character in depth. As a series main character, it is conceivable that coverage exists, but any sourceable information that is not only plot summary should first be added to the series article, Humanx Commonwealth, itself probably a borderline case. This unsourced text can safely be deleted. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth races. Sandstein 16:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do not see how this meet WP:GNG or even WP:BK. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. The character is mentioned on the author's page (Alan Dean Foster), but I am uncertain if that would be a good redirect target as it would be quite jarring for a reader to look up a fictional character and be redirected to a biographical article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 26 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 delete. Clear delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Familiar (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 article fails WP:JUSTPLOT, as it contains no real-world context, WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, and WP:GNG, as it contains no sources, and has been tagged as unsourced for over six years. Not a very active user (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Minor fictional concept. This one doesn't even bother to cite any sources, primary or otherwise. Actually searching for sources does not bring up anything substantial in reliable, secondary sources. As there is no sourced content here, there is nothing that should be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be the monster manual. Until Nov. 1st or so it was, but that is another story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancrufty article, fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 28 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 redirect to Ayya Vaikundar. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Vaikundar Avatar[edit]

Lord Vaikundar Avatar (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)

Out-of-process AfC move out of draftspace.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I dream of horses I am not sure that being out of process via AFC is a good reason to delete/even have an afd but I do think that this is a bunch of unencyclopedic nonsense and should just be redirected to Ayya Vaikundar where it's already more than adequately covered. So speedy redirect. Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Praxidicae. No need for another incarnation of an article on the same person. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Praxidicae, and as WP:Redirects are cheap - Arjayay (talk) 13:25, 23 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 delete. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Sandstein 21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Talwar[edit]

Victoria Talwar (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)

This nomination is a courtesy request on behalf of Dr Talwar who has contacted the WMF via VRTS ticket # 2020012110008396. Dr Talwar contends that her notability is at best borderline. I would add that the stub article only contains one secondary source, the others are all primary, and none of the criteria of WP:NPROF appear to be met. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Her Canada Research Chair is tier-2, meaning that it probably isn't enough for WP:PROF#C5. But her citation record looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As far as WP:NPROF C3 goes, she is also a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science and of the Royal Society of Canada. The citation record looks like an easy pass of WP:NPROF C1. The only thing that stops me from an immediate keep !vote is that it looks like her most highly-cited papers are coauthored with her former PhD advisor. Otherwise, she looks notable, nothing borderline about it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (as page creator) — I concur with David Eppstein's evaluation per the WP:PROF criteria; in some circumstances, I would argue for a keep. The question now is whether her wiki-notability is so incontrovertible, and her omission from the encyclopedia would be so hurtful to the project, that her deletion request should be overridden. To that end, I note that I had forgotten I'd created this stub, and it seems the only substantial work done on it since then was to add a few categories. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her work has been covered in major international publications. Sources include:

Significant coverage

• "Punishing Kids for Lying Only Makes Them Lie More" from Time
• "Learning to Lie" from New York Magazine
• "How should you deal with your child lying? Expert reveals some of the biggest mistakes parents make" from The Daily Mail
• "Strict parents 'turn children into liars': Disciplinarians mean 'the child does not feel safe telling the truth'" from The Daily Mail

The following sources discuss her research about lying children:

• "Strict parenting turns children into liars, experts claim" from The Independent
• "YES, MOM AND DAD, I LIED SOMETIMES—BUT THAT’S ALL YOUR FAULT" from Pacific Standard
• "Is Your Child Lying to You? That’s Good" from The New York Times
• "New Year’s Resolution: Be More Honest" from The New York Times
• "Big Little Liars" from The New York Times
• "How to Handle Little Liars" from The Wall Street Journal
• "Why Is My Child Lying?" from Psychology Today
• "Imagine: Children will lie. It’s not a flaw but a necessary milestone" from Indian Express
• "What Makes Children Lie?" from Big Think
• "What Makes Children Lie?" from Healthline

...and on and on and on. Just look her up on Google News. I had the WP article about me deleted, but I do not think it was a loss to the encyclopedia and my personal life was being deeply impacted by its existence. If that was the case – the harassment and personal impact of the article - I can consider otherwise , but, frankly, she is notable and I think her and her work is encyclopedic. (Now I know why I was a lying little kid...)Missvain (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree to Delete I think Ms. Talwar is probably sufficiently notable that all else being equal I'd support keeping an article about her -- but, you know, there's a reasonable enough argument for deletion and thus I think we should err on that side here. The citations provided above are helpful and really good, but arguably cover topics on which she has commented rather than providing coverage of Ms. Talwar herself. That, paired with the request, would suggest permitting deletion. That being said, I don't want to suggest that we should institute any sort of guaranteed right not to be covered in Wikipedia -- but when, as here, deleting an article would do no significant harm to the project, and when there is a colorable argument for deletion, I'm in favor of honoring the request. TheOtherBob 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree to Delete per nomination and Bob. --hroest 20:51, 29 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 delete. The term is not even mentioned in the possible redirect target 2000 AD (comics), so it doesn't make sense to redrect there. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Heights[edit]

Mercy Heights (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)

Not every comic strip is notable. What makes this one? I can't find any reliable analysis, reviews, etc. Few mentions in passing on blogs and like. Not sufficient in light of GNG/Wikipedia:Notability (media). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Redirect to 2000 AD (comics) - While I concur with the nomination that this comic fails the WP:GNG due to the lack of coverage is reliable, secondary sources, it could be useful as search term to redirect to the anthology it appeared in. Though, I'm a bit iffy on that, considering that there appear to be a number of real-life places actually called Mercy Heights, so I would also be fine with straight Deletion if consensus is leaning that way. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can find one source: 2000 AD: The Creator Interviews - Volume 05. Toughpigs (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It has sat there all but unnoticed since 2006. Seems a shame, but the complete lack of RS, and no evidence of notability means this fails GNG. — Sirfurboy (talk) 10:02, 23 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. Sandstein 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Creamer[edit]

Ryan Creamer (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)

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) has not met any of the 10 criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeslaCyberTruck (talk • contribs) 23:46, December 26, 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 15:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:

• ""I Love This Wholesome Porn Channel" from New York Magazine's The Cut
• "A Guy Created His Own Pornhub Channel And Has Been Sharing Hilariously Wholesome And Uplifting Videos" from BuzzFeed
• "Meet the Man Behind PornHub's Most Wholesome Videos" from Men's Health
• "Comedian becomes viral hit after creating PornHub channel to spread wholesome and friendly messages" from The Independent
• "There’s a wholesome, G-rated Pornhub channel" from the New York Post

and on and on...Missvain (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Missvain. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 04:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep per Missvain's sources. Easily passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:13, 28 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. There is obvious consensus not to delete the material outright. Whether it should be merged or left as a standalone can be determined by a discussion outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abeir-Toril[edit]

Abeir-Toril (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)

What makes this niche part of D&D verse notable? It's mostly WP:PLOT outside of the 'history of creation' part, but that's based on few mentions in passing/primary sources. I don't see any non-plot analysis of this construct that more in depth than a sentence or two. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge to Forgotten Realms. It is merely the name of the world in which the Forgotten Realms setting takes place in, and when you take out all of the primary sourced (and unsourced), in-universe plot information, then its not a necessary WP:SPLIT from the primary topic. The bits of sourced information regarding its History would be useful to add to the "History" section of the Forgotten Realms article, though, and it would serve as a useful redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge/redirect to Forgotten Realms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Forgotten Realms per above. BOZ (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the History section to Forgotten Realms#Geography; the rest is excessive in-universe info without demonstrated notability. No need for a spinout-article. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then make a new redirect unless those involved with D&D actually show what information would be useful in merging. I see little need to retain anything currently due to failing WP:N and WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looking through the sourcing, this doesn't appear to pass our notability guidelines and fails WP:PLOT. SportingFlyer T·C 11:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (with a trim) to Forgotten Realms. Forgotten Realms#Geography links back to this article so it could be expanded if it could be sourced. In terms of reception/criticism of Abeir-Toril, besides blog posts/forum discussions, I didn't find anything on the continents Maztica or Zakhara even when I looked on JSTOR for articles on D&D and Orientalism (or other types of racial stereotyping). The only source along those lines I found is a Kotaku article on Chult (on the continent of Faerûn).^[1] Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In terms of what can be merged (per TTN), the history section which outlines the development of the geography and then a brief mention of the 4(?) continents. The brief overview can highlight themes, real world influence and when they were added to the game. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge. Secondary sources exist. Actually, Abeir-Toril goes beyond the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, but I guess that would still be the best merge target. This is probably one of the most detailed fictional planets in Western Culture (even though the name often does not appear), so "niche part of the D&D verse" seems an incorrect description. Daranios (talk) 20:49, 28 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 delete and redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hezrou[edit]

Hezrou (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/NFICTION. DnD fancruft, deprodded by the usual fan culprit, sigh. Here we go again. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'd ask you to desist from the name calling. The "usual fan culprit" (that's me, apparently) simply disapproves of editors trying to get articles they don't like deleted under the table by prodding. Prodding should only be used for uncontroversial deletion. Not all of these articles have been deleted once taken to AfD, so it should be obvious by now that their deletion is not uncontroversial. I regularly monitor prodded articles and deprod any article where I consider the prod has been misapplied (and trust me, there are far too many of them). So kindly stop misusing prods (and denigrating those editors who remove them as they are fully entitled to do) and take these articles straight to AfD. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on the name calling. Let's keep all our AfDs (and everything else on wiki) civil and respectful. Missvain (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Minor fictional creature, using only primary sources. Searching for additional sources turns up nothing in reliable, secondary sources. It could potentially be used as a redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) (though I doubt its that common of a search term), but even then, I would advocate deletion first, as D&D articles that are merely turned into redirects per consensus have the habit of being restored by IP editors. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't think this article should be here, but I think the argument for deletion here is WP:ITSCRUFT. Can we stick to arguments about it not meeting GNG? Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). The article doesn't go beyond proving that the fictional element exists and doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Why would a prod be controversial here? – sgeureka ^t•c 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because even if an article isn't kept at AfD, a prod is also designed to destroy a perfectly legitimate possibility of merging and redirecting. That's why. It is commonly used by editors who don't like a specific article or category of articles in order to get those articles deleted without anyone noticing. Its use on any article whose complete deletion is not blatantly uncontroversial should be prevented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -per WP:GAMEGUIDE. No notability outside of D&D and this is not the monster manual. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. There is no need to retain such trivial information, and its retention even as a redirect just opens up the usual cycle of someone logging out to discreetly restore it. TTN (talk) 22:49, 25 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 delete. Deleting this one. If someone thinks there is something in this article that they think should be added to whatever "merge" article they prefer, I'm happy to help provide you the material you need to do that (user-fy, etc). Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shambling mound[edit]

Shambling mound (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. Previously deleted, but it has been well over a decade at this point. TTN (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. DnD cruft with OR on top (society section, etc., lol). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The history of this article is a bit confusing, but it would appear that this was already deleted once at AFD, recreated as a redirect to Plant creatures (Dungeons & Dragons), and then, like so many other previously deleted/redirected D&D articles, restored to a full article against consensus by a anonymous IP editor. Regardless of this, though, it does not pass the WP:GNG. The only sources are primary or trivial, and the article it was split out from is, itself, undergoing an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a monster manual. It actually is, but it is not supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the previous AfD, as the article's sourcing has not improved at all after the previous discussion, and then salt to prevent further recreation attempts. Not a very active user (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, NNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!! this can't be deleted as its an iconic (to D&Ders anyway) monster!! but coola with no reliable sources available this has to be a delete, ..... okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as above. Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't quite know how you would merge this into a list, and it fails our notability guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 11:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt As non-notable cruft. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:30, 28 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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Grigoryev (footballer)[edit]

Sergey Grigoryev (footballer) (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 about footballer who made a single 45 minute appearance in a Russian National Football League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer (searching is tricky because this is a rather common Russian name) in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [9]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here Jogurney (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete playing one time in a game should not more make someone notable than being the professor of record for one course at a university makes someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a handful of minutes in a professional game do not make up for WP:GNG failure. GiantSnowman 21:19, 23 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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shea McKeen[edit]

Shea McKeen (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, with only real coverage found regarding an arrest and suspension. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having only played for a minor league team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the coverage turned up by my searches relate to a 2006 arrest and suspension from the Sourth Carolina team. E.g., here. Predicating an article on such coverage is inconsistent with WP:BLP1E. I did also find this relating to a 2008 injury after transferring to NC State, but not enough to pass the WP:GNG bar. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:CRIMINAL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:05, 24 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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tywain Myles[edit]

Tywain Myles (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 and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Former Division II football player and NFL practice squad member. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found this, but the other coverage found consists of brief transactional announcements like this. Not enough to pass WP:GNG IMO. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails all inclusion criteria for gridiron football players, even the current inclusion criteria are insanely low.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NGRIDIRON never playing professionally. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and relevant athlete-specific notability guidelines. There is insufficient nontrivial coverage in WP:RS on which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Highest award is first team all conference in a division 2 conference. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 29 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. There is a consensus here among a majority of editors that there is sufficient, significant coverage across the sources available to demonstrate notability. There appears to be some good-faith disagreement over the significance of some coverage, and the reliability of some sources, but most participants seem to consider it sufficient in total. ~ mazca ^talk 01:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sadie Collective[edit]

The Sadie Collective (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)

This is a dubious article and appears to be notable until you dig into sources which are almost all primary or unreliable as far as notability goes (ie. Forbes contributor pieces). Many of the trimmed sources were written by the creator(s) or op-eds. The most decent source, The North Star doesn't appear to meet the caliber of editorial oversight in my opinion that we would require for a source to establish notability (see this about us) I think that this is just far too soon. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Philadelphia Inquirer piece gives significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source. The Women in Economics podcast series from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is also independent and can be used as a reliable secondary source for establishing notability--the podcast is moderated by Federal Reserve Bank employee Maria Hasenstab (the Federal Reserve Banks don't do paid advertisements).
  Yes, the organization is quite young, but it has attracted quite a lot of attention already. I am a professional economist who has never met any of the people mentioned in these articles, but I have been hearing about their work. It seems every article that mentions economists' concerns about the lack of Black women entering the field gives a passing mention to the Sadie Collective. For examples, see https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/business/economy/federal-reserve-diversity-hiring.html, https://www.wsj.com/articles/economics-profession-turns-attention-to-its-race-problem-11577974899, and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/business/economy/economics-race-gender.html--EAWH (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

passing mention, a single sentence where the founder is quoted, no comment on wsj as it's behind a paywall. Podcasts are going to be primary as it's usually appearances by it's founder and not independent. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said those articles gave passing mentions to the Sadie Collective. As for the podcast, please see WP:INTERVIEW: "material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline."EAWH (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think you're confusing coverage of Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander with this organization. this is primarily about her, not Sadie Collective outside of mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia Inquirer "mentions" The Sadie Collective throughout the article... so it's more than mentioned. It's covered. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The headline, "A new generation of black female economists revives a Philly lawyer’s legacy with the Sadie Collective," and multiple paragraphs about the organization make this much more than a passing mention of the Sadie Collective!--EAWH (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've had one of my edits reverted when I addressed concerns about sourcing by adding a good source. The target was moved from sourcing to relevancy. It's one thing to neuter the article of anything resembling promotion, but does not have to read in short, S/V/O sentences like a gradeschool primer. And most importantly, the relevant less than a sentence added won't affect the outcome of the deletion discussion. I have added the info again and I am going to work on this article. Let's add some discussion to this AfD edit battle. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39 your comments about this being an "edit battle" are pretty inflammatory and not at all what this is about, so I'd suggest redacting that. Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an observation. My constructive edits have been reverted twice, and there's been other edit back and forth outside of my involvement. I only suggest discourse and contribution are welcome as well as appropriate here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom, the depth and reliability of the sources is lacking. Although this article is pretty in-depth, it doesn't qualify notability standards on its own.Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is quite a new organization, however, beyond the long article in the Philadelphia paper, all that I can find by searching are a few mentions and a few quotations from the Collective's staff. It sounds like a wonderful organization, but we are not supposed to keep articles because we like the goals of the organization being profiled. We are supposed to follow the guidelines about sources.IceFishing (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible source. The Chronicle of Higher Ed has an article that may cover the organization, but I do not have access and ILL may take a little time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Ima go with "keep" because I find more decent news sources for this than for the average anime or YouTuber article--there's a NYT article as well, which I don't have access to--"How the Fed is trying to fix its white male problem". Drmies (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mere mentions in the New York Times carry no more weight than mere mentions in the Podunk Gazette. The Times article is a detailed examination of efforts by the Fed to recruit female economists. One Fed economist told the times that "She has become involved with the Sadie Collective, a new initiative meant to support black women in economics." IceFishing (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem. No. A mere mention in the NYT means a hell of a lot more than a half a page in the Podunk Gazette, IceFishing. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it had run in the Daily Planet, it would still be a mention, not significant coverage.IceFishing (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • IceFishing, I assume now that you agree that not all "mentions" are the same. So, now that we have established that there are more and less significant publications and thus more and less significant "mentions", I think we can agree that "mentions", and some of these are much more than that as is argued elsewhere in this AfD, in fact can add to notability if they are in significant publications. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as this appears to be a case of too soon. The organization has received quite a bit of attention for addressing a need within the education and economics communities, which is a good thing. Perhaps in due time new sources that convey the organization's impact will make a better case for notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes notability guidelines and I'm going to also invoke WP:BASIC on some sources. They also hosted the first conference for Black economists in the United States which got plenty of coverage. Sources include:

• "Inside the Conference for Black Women Economists" from Ms.
• "A new generation of black female economists revives a Philly lawyer’s legacy with the Sadie Collective" from The Philadelphia Inquirer
• "‘It Was a Mistake for Me to Choose This Field’: A Survey Lays Bare the Experiences of Black Women in Economics" from The Chronicle for Higher Education
• "Deep Rooted Structural ‘Violence’ Keeps Black Women Out of Economics" from Forbes (in the article)
• "Unsung Economists #1: Sadie Alexander" from NPR
• "U.S. Fed Governor Brainard Talks On 'Increasing Participation' Of Black Women In Economics" from Forbes
• "FIGHTING UNDERREPRESENTATION IN THE PUBLIC POLICY PROFESSION" from Columbia University
• Appearance on Hidden Truths with Lisa D. Cook
• "How the Fed Is Trying to Fix Its White Male Problem" from The New York Times
• "Economics needs to do more than attract women to solve its gender problem" from Quartz
• "Making the Case for More Black Women in Economics" from Mathematica at Princeton University
• "Economics Profession Turns Attention to its ‘Race Problem’" from The Wall Street Journal
• "Why We Need More Black Women In Economics" The North Star (in article)
• "Women in Economics: Anna Opoku-Agyeman and Fanta Traore" from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
• "UMBC students Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman and Olusayo Adeleye co-create 1st U.S. conference for Black women economists" from UMBC News
• "Economists are discussing their lack of diversity" from The Economist
• "A Year After a #MeToo Reckoning, Economists Still Grapple With It" from The New York Times
• "Professions in economics need to dump sexism" from Citizens' Voice
• "Economics Needs to Dump the Sexism" from Bloomberg News

Reading the article headlines is like reading about the lack of diversity and women in Wikipedia both as editors and content. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Missvain--I half-assed my keep a bit, and you went all out. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the articles in this list came right up when I ran a search. The reason I saw this as a delete is that I kept reading articles that merely name-check the Sadie Collective. Take the article above in theChronicle of Higher Education: "She knew the landscape and had co-founded the Sadie Collective, an organization dedicated to equipping and empowering black women in economics and related fields." This is not significant coverage. User:Missvain, since you have read all of these, could you please pull out the ones that have significant coverage? Thank you.IceFishing (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Icevishing is correct and you should take a look at those sources again as many are passing mentions, written by the founders, quotes from the founders or contributor pieces. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I see TWO sources that are enough to establish notability here: The Philadelphia Inquirer article, and the inclusion of a full episode on this organization in the St. Louis Fed podcast series.--EAWH (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't looked at all of them, Praxidicae, but I looked at a couple. The Economist article, one can say that's little more tha just a namecheck--"Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, a co-founder of the Sadie Collective, an initiative to boost the representation of black women within economics, said..." But the Quartz article offers this, "Anna Opoku-Agyeman, who graduated in May from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and is aspiring to a PhD in economics, has worked hard to create a space for women like her. She set up the Sadie Collective, named after Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander, the first African American woman to get a PhD in economics in the US in 1921. Opoku-Agyeman, who recently turned 23, co-organized a conference in Washington, DC in February, specifically designed to highlight black women economists, and encourage more to join the field." And that is not nothing, it's not trivial. Yes, I'd like more in-depth coverage, but what we have here is a LOT of hits, not all of which mere mentions or name checks. One could argue, BTW, that all these sources provide plenty of material to write up Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman (I just created the redirect, because there's enough hits to warrant it). Sure some of these are all-too short and thus not very helpful, but there comes a moment when there is a preponderance of hits, even though some of them fairly light, that add up to notability. I think we're there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]