< 15 March	17 March >

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life (Hardline album)[edit]

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

Another case of "undersourced album/song that needs to go to AfD because one editor keeps reverting and there's like 3 page watchers". No indication of independent notability, redirect to band suggested. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't this problem arise with the other Hardline albums or with other album pages that I have edited? -- Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk · contribs) 10:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically - because no one has bothered to check them yet? Currently you've got one shorthish review [1], which is being copied by two other sources. That's not "in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources" (WP:NALBUM). Looking at the other album articles - Live at the Gods Festival 2002 should be nomiated for deletion as well based on the sourcing, as should Leaving the End Open and Human Nature (Hardline album). Off the top of my head, the only one that currently meets sourcing requirements is Danger Zone (Hardline album)... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to make them much more encyclopedic. We are still talking about an important band with one of the most famous voices of the current world rock scene. It is useless to request or impose its cancellation, when the editor could be proposed simply to deepen its contents, which in any case is in progress. -- Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk · contribs) 14:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There's currently not enough coverage to warrant stand-alone inclusion. It's possible this album will get critically reviewed when it comes out. Right now, it is case of WP:TOOSOON. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. So Why 14:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Vega[edit]

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

highly promotional article by now blocked sockpuppet of paid editing group DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G11, surely.—S Marshall T/C 23:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill bit actress. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was a suggestion to merge, but no specific target mentioned. I guess Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority? In any case, no consensus for that. If somebody wants to datamine this, let me know and I'll be happy to userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cleveland RTA bus routes[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR. No indication anywhere that these are notable routes. Ajf773 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable sources; all appear to be blog entries Nightfury 11:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless more information about the routes can be added. Cleveland is one of the top 40 transit systems in the USA. I think it is notable.Alexlatham96 (talk) 05:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Alexlatham96: notability needs to be supported by WP:RS. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mouse Guard#Planned film adaptation. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 18:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse Guard (film)[edit]

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

Film project that never entered production; not notable on its own. Trivialist (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mouse Guard#Planned film adaptation, the page for the comic book this movie would have been based on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reasons for its cancellation are significant. Also it's a major director and we leave a gap in their career otherwise. No objection to a redirect and merge though, so long as the merged content retains enough to cover this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Mouse Guard#Planned film adaptation per above. It looks like the main article on the comic already covers the main bits of info regarding the films production and subsequent cancellation, but this article does have a few additional sources that could be integrated there. Rorshacma (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Lester[edit]

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

Musician who doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Artist who doesn't meet WP:ARTIST. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources on the page aren't independent of the subject. The other supposed sources that were on the page don't mention him. EddieHugh (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Haven't found any reliable sources, there is basically almost nothing on him. Clearly fails WP:GNG as well as specific. Less Unless (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article. Being a Berklee graduate is not inherently notable. The sparse search hits may or may not relate to the same person, but at any rate, nothing indicates attained notability whether as a musician or a cover artist. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unable to find RS. Caro7200 (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable guitarist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sundown Manor, Indiana[edit]

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

Tiny subdivision/neighborhood [2] [3], no indication of notability Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small subdivision, not a distinct populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 22:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subdivision/neighborhood which does not pass WP:GEOLAND#2 with RS. Fails WP:N Lightburst (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Braxtons Siding, Indiana[edit]

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

Railroad siding in incorporated Paoli, Indiana [4], no indication it's a notable community. Zero newspapers.com results under this name or with Braxton Paoli. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Old railroad siding, no sign that it's a distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this passes WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GEOLAND. According to this source [5] its part of a town, which in a way makes it kind of like a neighbored. Not notable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Mishra[edit]

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

minor role in a single film, no coverage, fails WP:NACTOR Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Playing a secondary part in a TV series and a role in a new movie (btw it's not "lead" as stated in the article is not enough per WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:ENT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject falls a little short of WP:NACTOR, and though there are a number of online hits for an "Aman Mishra", none of them seem to be about the subject. I'd have no objection to the article being recreated once he becomes more notable, but it is WP:TOOSOON just now. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time we stop allowing the creation of articles based only on the non-reliable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and totally agree with John Pack Lambert re articles using IMDB as sole reference Joseywales1961 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019-20 Sheikh Russel KC season[edit]

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

Prod removed, article fails WP:GNG and also WP:NSEASONS due to Sheikh Russel KC not playing in a fully pro league. Govvy (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 21:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parks Place, Mississippi[edit]

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

One of a couple dozen plantations marked on the provided map, but I can find no corroboration verifying the claim that it "is a ghost town" or was a "settlement" beyond a generic landowner's property. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable place and fails WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of a notable place here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This AfD is tantamount to asserting that GNIS is an entirely unreliable source. In this particular instance, GNIS not only identified Parks Place as a populated place, but went one step farther to identify Parks Place as a populated place that is now abandoned (hence its listing on GNIS as "historic"). To confirm that GNIS was indeed correct, this map showing Parks Place was included as a source. Is the existence of nearby Evergreen Church also dubious? A reliable source was added to this article, supported by a map. I scratch my head at how Parks Place does not meet the criteria of WP:GEOLAND or WP:V. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates of the church appear aligned with square plot #15 of the map, east of the north end of Stack Island, not with Parks Place further south in plot #7. Sure, people lived in this area, but I scratch my head at where you can say "Parks Place is a ghost town" when we have literally nothing more than a name on a map. The church is closer to "Bale Shed" and "Holly Ridge" in plots 2 and 4 to its north, but we do not have anything corroborating the claim any were more than single plantations. The actual town is Mayersville, Mississippi, marked further north of that in larger bold letters! But yes, the GNIS should be roundly ignored unless you want to recreate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington – we need multiple significant sources! Reywas92^Talk 18:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The abandoned church is in the same county, and it's a very small county. It was just an example. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~As I understand it governmental geographic sites are RS for townships.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Appearing in a database is not sufficient; GNIS is notorious for mislabeling all sorts of things as "populated places". Per WP:GEOLAND, since there's no sign that this is a legally recognized place, it would have to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 13:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Parks Place had a Post Office. I realize that there are differing opinions about whether a Post Office is legal recognition which meets WP:GEOLAND #1, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Is the presence of Post Office sufficient to fulfill legally recognized place?. However, in my opinion, having a Post Office is sufficient. Further discussion about Post Offices and notability could go to the talk page. I have not yet been able to find non-trivial references to this location, so WP:GEOLAND#2 has not yet been met. Without the Post Office, Parks Place was a plantation and not notable. GNIS has been shown to be unreliable. See my comment. Further discussion about GNIS could go to Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#GNIS database. Cxbrx (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm changing my position to delete, Bkonrad reverted my edits stating that there is nothing that connects them with this particular Parks Place. So, WP:GEOLAND#1 does not apply. There is only trivial coverage, so this location does not meet WP:GEOLAND #2. Delete. Delete. Delete. Many thanks to Bkonrad. Cxbrx (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are some other sources for notability. GNIS is sufficient RS that a place existed. By itself it is not evidence of notability. The sources recently added (which I removed) are not clearly connected with the place in Issaquena County. The place mentioned in the court case was located in Bolivar County (and Google shows some other mentions of such a place). GNIS also mentions another Parks Place (also spelled as Parksplace) in Panola County. The reference concerning the post office does not indicate which of the three possible counties it was in. older ≠ wiser 17:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 - knock off the B.S. about the reliability of GNIS. Though it might not be 100% perfect, overall it's reasonably accurate for what I've examined in Kansas. Over the years, I've found a small number of coordinate mistakes, but when I reported these issues to the GNIS they quickly fixed the mistakes, and it wasn't enough to make me not trust the usefulness of GNIS. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that GNIS lists places that GNIS categorizes as "populated places" that are not necessarily sufficiently notable for WP:GEOLAND. An example is Pronto, Nevada, which is listed as a populated place in the GNIS. This was railroad station on the WPRR and per WP:STATION, it is not notable unless it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Don't get me wrong, I love the GNIS. I've found out a bunch of interesting information by reading some of the requests for name changes etc. I'm fascinated by it. I've too have submitted corrections. However, I don't feel that having a GNIS entry is in itself sufficient for WP:N. Neither is appearing on a map. Probably the best place for this sort of discussion is over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Cxbrx (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS is a good catalog of names and locations that appear on topos, but it's been shown to use "populated place" as a catch-all for miscellaneous entries. Lately we've had to delete dozens of articles about homesteads/ranches, geographic features, river crossings, boat landings, railroad sidings and subdivisions that were erroneously labeled as "populated places" by GNIS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington for a collection of articles about industrial rail sidings and junctions that were erroneously labelled as populated places. –dlthewave ☎ 01:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point was ONLY about the reliability and usefulness of GNIS, not whether GNIS was notable by itself to determine if an article should be kept or deleted. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - recently I came across a community in Kansas that use to be next to a river in the late 1800s, but it currently doesn't exist, only because floods and water erosion had destroyed it. The Kansas community was shown on old county maps and atlases, which proves that another GNIS entry historically existed in the past, though there isn't any visual history remaining. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A GNIS alone is insufficient to establish that this place is notable. Yilloslime (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, which states that low population and abandonment do not eliminate notability because notability is not temporary. Deleting articles such as these would be contrary to longstanding tradition.Jacona (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes abandoned places can be notable, but that does not mean not every abandoned place is notable. There is no longstanding tradition of keeping articles that fail notability. older ≠ wiser 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that abandoned places of which there is no longer a trace may be notable. However, per WP:GEOLAND#1, it needs to be a "Populated, legally recognized places". There is quite a bit of debate about what constitutes the legally recognized. I feel that having a Post Office is the bottom of the possibilities and that in general legally recognized means town, village etc. that has some form of government. Or, WP:GEOLAND#2, it needs to have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". If we are going to debate these very much, then doing it over at the Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) is probably a good place. 23:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete The GNIS entry for this place cites a map from 1868 as evidence for its existence, and another map from 1873 marks it, but it's not entirely clear from either of those sources that this actually was a populated place. It seems at least as likely that the points on the map are plantation names, or something else that isn't a community. I've seen a fair number of cases where a GNIS listing for a "populated place" corresponded to a named plantation with no associated community; it's pretty obvious when the plantation is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the documentation for that says absolutely nothing about a community. Without any clear evidence as to the status of this place, and with little else to say about it, I don't think there's much point in keeping the article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Africa 100[edit]

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

I see no point in this entry. This is just a rehash of a Pitchfork article. This isn't even a real album, it's just a theoretical mixtape a Pitchfork writer created. This is not referenced by any other reliable independent sources. I don't believe this deserves an article, and under the notability requirement mentioned in WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG, I recommend this is nominated for deletion.D1119 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only source that discusses it is the Pitchfork article itslef. I was able to find passing mentions in sources like https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/music/2013-08-07/hard-proof-afrobeat-honoring-its-moniker/ https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/africa-50-years-of-music-box-set-album-review/Content?oid=2848922 and https://www.getintothis.co.uk/2014/06/top_10_african_tracks/ but there's no WP:SIGCOV of this work, not even at AllMusic: https://www.allmusic.com/album/100-beats-african-100-beats-and-grooves-from-the-african-world-mw0002003947 . Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not really an album. The author at Pitchfork listed his favorite songs in the genre then someone else put together a playlist that has become an unofficial mixtape among collectors. That sequence of events is of interest to the folks back at Pitchfork but the previous voters are correct on the collection's lack of significant coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The playlist fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. It has not been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Ahuja[edit]

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

spammy paid for article sourced to obvious press releases/fake sources. Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. No reliable coverage and looks obvious spam. In fact it's a speedy delete for me. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Spam sources, no real claim to notability. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. Notable entrepreneur[6]), Actual independent authentic coverage with "generally reliable" sources like The Statesman,International Business Times,Zee News. Request experts to kindly consider.– Miffsseek (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What is he supposed to be notable for? Apart from having 38,000 followers on Instagram. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not just Instagram that he is famous for.He is already verified on Google, Helo, Facebook and his posters were officially posted all over New Delhi Metro Train for enabling and providing free of cost education to more that 14 underprivileged needy children from Delhi and Uttar Pradesh hence The page has been created following Wikipedia's guidelines and is not for advertisement. – Miffsseek (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:GNG. significant coverage in third-party sourcesPlease Check All the links are reputable. He has been featured into wide international reputed media and news(General notability guideline - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list and Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article ) and "significant coverage" in reliable sources which are already on wikipedia such as Hindustan times,The Statesman (India), Hindustan Times, The Hans India, International Business Times, Zee News and he meets the criteria of independent mentions in reliable sources.

and he's one of the famous personalities.This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. there will some of the mistakes in the content, but obviously, I haven't done anything which will prohibit the guidelines of Wikipedia. Miffsseek (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Statesmen piece is not at all reliable, nor is the rest of it coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miffsseek: Unfortunately for you, most of the editors here already know how PR articles work. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The9Man: I truly understand Wikipedians have invested a great deal of thought in the question of what may and may not be included in the encyclopedia. But, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia if the outside world has already "taken notice of it"( https://g.co/kgs/S28Wsj ) and if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. - Objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Sources of evidence include recognized reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Though I have edited the article during the discussion and removed The Statesman (India) piece as There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. I have even added it as a STUB and request experts to take that into consideration. Miffsseek (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. We need reliable, indepdent, secondary source coverage and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Nalkari[edit]

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

The BLP article does not pass any notability criteria. References are so poor. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: This one's got me torn, because the subject has the lead role in an Indian soap opera, Roja (TV series), and has appeared in hundreds and hundreds of episodes of it—yet her other roles all seem relatively minor. Also, as the nominator points out, most of the sources aren't great—the English ones, anyway. The last reference provided in the article is okay, but I don't think it's enough, on its own, to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold. I can't say anything about the non-English sources, though, and I would love to hear what other editors who speak the language think about them. My vote, at the moment, is a very tentative "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added 8 references scrapes through WP:NACTOR her serial Roja (TV series) is a hit and a notable TV show ongoing with over 560 episodes and here she is the main lead.She is the female lead in Telugu films called Naa Sami Ranga this and Welcome To America This.With an ongoing career see little point in delating it.Further there is coverage in the Tamil Language and Telugu Language .Feel it will scrape through WP:GNG as well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although it all hangs on whether Roja (TV series) is a significant series. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vosges (chocolatier)[edit]

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

Not a notable chocolate maker with seemingly only one location and also limited news coverage.

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG James Richards 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. James Richards 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. James Richards 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. James Richards 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NEXIST: I'm finding coverage in business books; Vosges is a notable example of following your passion to create a strong business.
- Fortune Zoom: Surprising Ways to Supercharge Your Career by Leigh Gallagher and Daniel Roberts, TI Incorporated Books (2013): "Vosges is known for its exotic flavor combinations (beef jerky on the Wild Ophelia line, horseradish and sweet Indian curry from Vosges) and delicacies like chocolate-covered bacon."
- Look at More: A Proven Approach to Innovation, Growth, and Change by Andy Stefanovich, Wiley (2011): "When Markoff applied her passion for the world's diverse cultures to her work — sweets — she found a rewarding life and a strategic edge."
- Cooking Up a Business: Lessons from Food Lovers who Turned Their Passion Into a Career--and how You Can, Too by Rachel Hofstetter, Perigree Books (2013): "Katrina's vision for the future is to create a fully vertical business, where Vosges does everything from growing cocoa beans and making the chocolate base to selling the finished products in stores."

I'll add these to the article in a Further reading section, so that editors who want to improve the page can use these as sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think those sources aren't a little to positive about the subject? I haven't really figured out where the line is myself, but the quotes sound more like marking fluff then actual neutral in-depth coverage. Nor do I think things like Katrina's vision for the future of her company are really relevant anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources available and based on my patented, absolutely lousy, completely unreliable “I, a random person, have heard of this” test. Just googling this, I see multiple recent articles in Bloomberg News, Forbes, Good Housekeeping, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, CNN, and CNET, and a telling article in the Boston Globe that’s about another subject (Dunkin Donuts) but assumes that the reader would know who Vosges is. The comeback will be that these many, many (I mean, I didn’t count, but it looks like hundreds of them) articles talking about Vosges don’t talk about the company as a corporate entity but rather discuss it in the context of its products. But when you have an absolute flood of reliable sources talking about a company’s products, that to me would be enough to allow an editor to build an encyclopedic article. Given that, we should be able to have an article about this — and should have an article about this. TheOther Bob 18:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United Macedonian Diaspora[edit]

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

This article is for a charity based in the United States which lacks notability, with all the sources on this page being currently from the official website of the charity.

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrichards12345 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When looking at the revision history of this artile, I noticed a user called 'UnitedMacedonians' who has a similar name to this organisation and has also contributed large edits to this Wikipedia page so there is a chance that this user is connected to the United Macedonian Diaspora organisation. A few blogs and news sites mention this organisation in their articles but it falls under the 'A single-sentence mention in an article about another company' or topic example. The only sources used on this Wikipedia page are from the official website for United Macedonian Diaspora. --James Richards 18:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete Per nom and because the article is just an advertisement that would have to be wholly rewritten. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searches also need to be done for "Obedineta makedonska dijaspora" and done for "Обединета македонска дијаспора". But, yes, there does not appear to be much about the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Wolves Productions[edit]

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

The subject is not notable. My search for sources did not turn up independent reliable sources. MrClog (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. No independent notability that I can determine. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might be a case of TOOSOON. They seem to be involved in a number of non trivial productions, but to what extent is far from obvious, and in any case such would be leaning on INHERIT rather than esablishing a reputation and hence independent notability. I was thinking of a redirect to I'm Here Too, which if its controversy and awards are as claimed then it should have been notable enough to have its own article, but no. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Christian Fellowship, Guelph[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. A similarly named page (Bethel Christian Fellowship) was speedy deleted not long before this article was created. Biscuit3413 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Biscuit3413 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Biscuit3413 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill. Mccapra (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:GNG. I can't find a single independent source for the church. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK Single Market[edit]

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

Comment Page now moved by User:ChefBear01 to Draft:UK Single Market (notification per WP:EDITATAFD) Now moved back. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC), edited 06:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable topic, fails WP:GNG. The "UK Single Market" is basically the default situation of a sovereign state, i.e. that there are no trade barriers with its borders.

The only sources which are actually about the "UK single market" are:

https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i336/what_is_the_uk_single_market.aspx ... which seems to be an advocacy group
https://reaction.life/what-is-the-uk-single-market/ ... which doesn't look like a reliable source.

This looks like the makings of a WP:COATRACK for one POV on the Brexit debates. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost every use of the phrase on Google refers to UK access to the European Single Market, and it's worth noting that the two sources listed above are both by the same person and consist of much of the same text. The phrase seems to be a neologism coined by the "These Islands" group. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 13:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

The article covers the various areas within the single market from goods, services, capital and people.

It links to pages where information would be repetitive if place in the article

As for references to the EU single market, the UK had been a member of the EU for a while and so the citations I found were mixed in with the EU though I do and will continue to try and find non connective citations.

I can take the article back to the draft space if necessary depending if you feel the article can stay on the main space while I improve it.

I tried to also keep it brief in areas where necessary or preferable to avoid it becoming a mirror article.

I took every step possible to keep it generic and avoid it becoming an opinion article.

I feel like it is suitable to be maintained, however I will endeavour to make any improvements and updates necessary to improve and grow the article where needed.

From what I can see of the issues presented it is a matter of sourcing and structure and has been incorrectly placed for deletion, I think the article should be updated and marked for WP:Cleanup

ChefBear01 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a political boondoggle invented by some of the crazier brexiters. Their political claim is that this "market" could replace trade with the EU and we'd just sit here trading loo roll and hand sanitiser amongst ourselves. Within their own minds, it's notable. But does anyone outside the wonk-bubble pay attention? Not that I can see. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment

Andy Dingley is only making a political statement not relevent to the page or contributing to the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question is WP:N, if anyone else paid attention to it. It's not enough if the only people writing about this are those advocating it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:ChefBear01 has now moved the page to Draft:UK Single Market. (ChefBear, if this situation comes up again, it's a good idea to notify people on the AfD discussion to avoid confusion—see WP:EDITATAFD. :-) ) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment I have moved the article back; it should remain in the article space until this AfD concludes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This is not a thing. Renerpho (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is written in archaic language in the treaty of Union, but non the less valid

This is confirmed by the explanation given within the citation, page and legislation links I provided.

It is confirmed as a matter of international and domestic law it does exist par say

[User:ChefBear01|ChefBear01]] (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChefBear01: If there is a case to be made for that, Wikipedia isn't the place to develop the theory, as Wikipedia has a "no original research" policy. Per the general notability guideline, there needs to have been significant coverage of the "UK Single Market" concept in reliable sources before it can appear. There are two linked above by User:BrownHairedGirl, but their reliability is questionable, and they also seem to be essentially the same article. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 18:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

my comment has nothing to do with :making a theory or original research I don’t need either, I am pointing out the inevitable that the treaty of Union alongside it’s legislative parts undisputedly proves the existence fundamentally of the UK Single Market and it’s sub components.

It sounds like you are stating that Wikipedia does not accept the legality of international recognised treaties as you seem to state that you won’t accept it as a reliable source despite it been good enough for the international community. I can look for citations to reinforce the article, but the foundation of what I have provided should protect it from deletion and allow me to continue to grow the page source base.

ChefBear01 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChefBear01: What do you mean by good enough for the international community? YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just spotted that you've added some more sources for the term to the article—that's great. I've removed the Daily Mail one because it's blacklisted by Wikipedia as a source (see WP:DAILYMAIL), but left the others. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

YorkshireLad I hope that I have shown enough progress to allow the page to be kept, I will endeavour to keep expanding where I can to improve the page and I appreciate the input I have received as it has helped me to identify where errors could be fixed and additions could be made

ChefBear01 (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing which verifies the 1707 act of union still isn't enough to demonstrate this new concept of a "UK Single Market" as being notable.

Also, why's the 1800 act of union with Ireland here? That hasn't been in effect for a century. Nor would the RoI be any part of such a "UK Single Market". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Andy Dingley I have added 5 citations, and the act of Union 1800 is there as I is a foundation legislation that bought Ireland into the uk, however I have added in brackets that the Republic of Ireland ceded from the UK.

ChefBear01 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again, Sourcing which verifies the 1707 act of union still isn't enough to demonstrate this new concept of a "UK Single Market" as being notable. Yes, we know Scotland exists. We know that it trades with England. But why do we need a new concept, and a new WP article to tell us this? Sam Taylor (and no-one else) likes to present this as if it's some radical new concept within the Unicorn-ridden Sunlit Uplands of brexit, when it isn't. And until we shot our feet off with The Great Stupidity, we already had a single market stretching across the whole of Europe too.

Also your Reuters link is broken. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Andy Dingley, I have fixed the broken link.

I have citations and links that both make notable mentions of the UK single market, and in one link referring to the EU - UK withdrawal agreement the European Union even acknowledges the existence UK Single Market in an international treaty and that I would say was notable alongside other mentions within my other links.

ChefBear01 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChefBear01: please read WP:GNG, which is the test being applied here. (It is also known as WP:SIGCOV, because it's all about significant coverage.

Note in particular the first two sentences:

WP:GNG, aka WP:SIGCOV:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

So far, you have offered precisely nothing which comes to meeting that test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChefBear01: It is an improvement, though I'm not sure the sources are enough to qualify as significant coverage, as User:BrownHairedGirl notes: the mentions in those sources are still relatively brief. (By the way, I'm still interested to know what you meant by good enough for the international community—did you mean those sources you added?) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

YorkshireLad

I was ineloquently trying to say that no country would question the integrity of a international treaty that two or more parties have chosen to be a party to international law is respected by countries and adhered to, and as the Treaty of Union is an international agreement and international law that is followed by countries surely it would be accepted as a respectable source of information to use as fact. I was pointing out for consensus whether you would agree that treaties bound by international law, used and respected by countries for centuries are respectable sources.

ChefBear01 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChefBear01: Oh, I see. So, the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union 1707 (for instance) would be considered to be primary sources. The "no original research" policy talks about the use of them, and says: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so (emphasis in original). My interpretation of that is that deducing from the Acts of Union etc. that they create a "UK Customs Union" is original research. There is one secondary source that does make that deduction, which is what Sam Taylor presents, but editors (myself included) have raised question marks over its reliability. The other sources, as far as I can see, are passing mentions of the term that don't talk about what it is or might be. It is, however, good to see sources that do use the term at all, as this suggests there is some wider use of the term.

To be clear here, I'm not saying you're wrong to conclude that there is a UK Customs Union; my case is that the evidence in secondary sources isn't strong enough for it to be written about here. Similarly, I'm not criticising your evident hard work on the article, or saying you should do more to make it pass the general notability guideline, since the GNG is a test applied to potential article subjects, not to potential articles themselves. (I'm saying this without prejudice to including some of those new sources in an existing Brexit- or Indyref2-related article to mention that people have argued that a UK Customs Union exists, though the Sam Taylor article probably isn't a reliable enough source to go in those either. Also, other editors may disagree with me, particularly on this last point!) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the logical path I'd see as being the main problem here. Rather Oculi's terse comment, which nails it perfectly, "states the obvious at inordinate length." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I agree that is also a problem with the article, but I'd argue that's not a reason for deletion, but for pruning it into a stub—which I think would be the right course of action if multiple people in reliable sources started writing articles like Taylor's, or discussing Taylor's views on the matter. They haven't done so, nor do I believe it's likely that they would, so it's not the right path to take, and the article should go for that reason. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - states the obvious at inordinate length. Oculi (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have fixed the text so that it is more condensed.

ChefBear01 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

User:YorkshireLad|YorkshireLad]]

I have added a citation that is detailed regarding the history of the single market, and is by a professional source

[6] Simms, Brendan (September 18, :::2019).

"From backdoor to backstop: Ireland's shifting relationship with Britain and Europe". New Statesman. Brendan Simms is a professor in the history of international relations at Peterhouse, Cambridge and an NS contributing writer. His most recent book is “Hitler: Only the World was Enough” (Allen Lane).

ChefBear01 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChefBear01, that article https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/09/backdoor-backstop-ireland-s-shifting-relationship-britain-and-europe makes precisely one mention of a Uk single market: "In 1707, during the struggle against Louis XIV’s France over the Spanish Succession, Scotland and England established a parliamentary and defence union, as well as a single market and customs union, in a new state called Great Britain".

It should be abundantly clear to you that a single passing mention in one sentence of the 11th paragraph of the article is a trivial comment, and that it comes nowhere near the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

BrownHairedGirl

The comment goes into more detail about the history of the market, without waffling that information on the page. And it is from a more reputable source, as previous comments have mentioned they judge the source of the citation, I will move it into the history section as that is where it is most appropriate.

I have also corrected my comment above to include more specificity and I will more the citation to avoid any further confusion

ChefBear01 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChefBear01, please do READ WP:SIGCOV. Despite numerous requests, you show no sign at all of having done so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

BrownHairedGirl

I have read it multiple times over, but finding citations that meet the criteria is another thing

ChefBear01 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, there is no significant coverage. Which is precisely why I nominated this article for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

BrownHairedGirl there is significant coverage but people then attack the citations I have used as questionable which is really a matter of interpretation not facts, just opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChefBear01, So I'm the only other person who used the word "questionable", and therefore I assume that was directed at me? To clarify what I meant: the source from These Islands is essentially a blog—see WP:BLOGS. The other piece (or rather, source for the same piece) is Reaction.life, which I admit wasn't a source I'd heard of. It's not a well-established source, but it potentially has some credibility (judging by its own Wikipedia article). However, it's worth noting that WP:GNG mentions significant coverage in reliable sources in the plural, and there's only one there. Hope that clears things up. :-) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 19:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment YorkshireLad My Comment wasn’t aimed at anyone particular, I should have said people have reservation, I am only trying to make contributions without being caught wikireaucracy. Or Wikipedia’s bureaucracy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_bureaucracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't bureaucracy. It is quality control, which goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about.

The issue is simple. Wikipedia is a tertiary publication. In other words, it is based on secondary sources, rather than on primary sources. And those secondary sources have to be reliable sources.

Use of primary sources contravenes WP:No original research.

Unfortunately, what you have here is mostly primary sources, with some secondary sources which are not reliable sources. You do have one vaguely reliable source (the New Statesman wouldn't be anyone's first port of call for economics) ... but it makes only a trivial passing mention of the topic.

If and when there is significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources, then we can have an article on it. But not until then. Wikipedia is not a hosting site for original research and material sourced from blogs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Super Kings–Royal Challengers Bangalore rivalry[edit]

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

Two teams playing each other in a cricket league as per the schedule demands. There are no references or incidents to support the rivalry between them. As per the WP:NRIVALRY demands it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the most borderline of the 3, and whilst there do seem to be a few online sources that use the word "rivals", they were all match previews/ reports and not specifically about a genuine rivalry between the teams. Spike 'em (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And tended to focus on the personal rivalry between the 2 captains (Dhoni and Kohli). Spike 'em (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Abishe (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GAA Scores Podcast[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast. No indication of notability either in the article or outside of it. Other than the subject's own website (effectively the only source for this article), the only independent coverage that I can find is this piece in the Irish Examiner. In this "listicle" we find the subject listed together with another 50 Twitter users. I can find no independent sources (certainly not in any of the Irish newspapers of record) which cover the subject in any depth. Or, frankly, at all. I would have moved for PROD, but the (almost certainly COI) user who created this article removed a previous SPEEDY tag, on the basis that they had removed all the promo/copyvio content they'd used to create it. Frankly, however, the underlying promo/NN concerns remain unaddressed. I do not see how this subject meets WP:SIGCOV or WP:WEBCRIT. Guliolopez (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. My own searching finds some passing mentions ([7][8][9]) but nothing that even comes close to WP:SIGCOV. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Super Kings–Sunrisers Hyderabad rivalry[edit]

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

These are two teams playing against each other in a sports league. There are no incidents to mention the rivalry between them. There are no references to support WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self delete I created this article in 2018 and was relatively a newbie at that time. Now I agree it doesn't meet with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Abishe (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no online sources describe this as a rivalry. Spike 'em (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because ,no online source confirmation of their rivalry (teams) (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed AlKuwaiti[edit]

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

Non-notable professor, he haven't placed or won any notable awards, and most of the sources are from the university itself, or from his own website. Fails WP:N. --Faisal ^talk 13:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. فيصل (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable per WP:ACADEMIC. The articles already deleted on arwiki (arwiki RfD) --Alaa :)..! 13:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC also likely an WP:AUTOBIO given the username of the editor who created the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Prakasananda Giri Swamy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vidya Prakasananda Giri Swamy

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

Not a notable person. The article looks very much like a promotional effort. Fails WP:GNG. - MRRaja001 (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. Article is itself a promotional piece. Azuredivay (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the nom's assertion that's promotional is undoubtedly true (up to and including someone's phone number at the bottom!), that's actually an argument to avoid, as it can be dealt with elsewhere. But, it is true that the basic notability guidelines at WP:ANYBIO are clearly not met, lacking as the article does any indication of the topic having received broad coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources. And a WP:BEFORE search indicates a further dearth of such in both the relevant literature and news outlets. ——SN 54129 11:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Protest[edit]

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

This seems to be an essay on something written by James H. Cone rather than an encyclopedic entry. Black Protest (with a capital P) does not seem to be a notable book, movement or organisation (apart from Abortion in Poland § Black Protest). With a small "p" it is redundant to other articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
18:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment – The topic itself appears to be notable with reliable sources discussing the topic in depth [10] ; [11] ; [12]. However, I agree with Rich. This is written more like an essay. The article will need a complete re-write / stub IMO. Also, no need to captalize the P. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Senegambianamestudy. IW. (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tplay[edit]

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

Article about a Nigerian musician who fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NBAND, and WP:GNG. This is one of tens of thousands of musicians in Nigeria. There's no indication he passes our standards specifically for musicians, nor more generally any notable person. Please ping me of you find something significantly new. Bearian (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree there are no reputable sources that satisfy notability. --James Richards 17:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Per norm. Not enough sources to ascertain notability. Lapablo (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article fails all criterion of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 06:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sports in Karnataka. There's a claim that there's copyvio issues here, but no specifics given. Whoever does the merge should be careful to avoid copying any offending material, and if it's substantial, you might also want to use WP:REVDELREQUEST to remove it from the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sports in Mangalore[edit]

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

A separate list article about sports in a particular city of India might not be relevant here. It is better it can be merged with Sports in Karnataka. I also found copyright issues with the content. Abishe (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: From lack of discussion, this nomination appears to have no quorum. It seems no previous PRODs, previous AfD discussions, previous undeletions, or a current redirect, so this nomination appears to be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

Merge I see no reason why the city and the state should have separate sports articles. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Super Kings–Kings XI Punjab rivalry[edit]

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

There is no references to show these teams rivalry. There is no particular incident between these two teams to match this claim. Fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are just two teams in a tournament with a small number of teams. Of course they will play each other a fair few times, but there's hardly a "rivalry" and this article is simply a list of results between them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this is anything more than a run-of-the-mill pair of teams who have played a few times. Would the nominator consider adding Chennai Super Kings–Sunrisers Hyderabad rivalry which is similarly sparse? That claims SRH are CSK's 3rd biggest rivals, which, if true, would make KXIP their 4th biggest! Spike 'em (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the creator of this article. I know I have no much evidence for rivalry of teams, So without doing any further discussion I also nominate this article to remove, thanks (Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of Finland. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Finland[edit]

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

No coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Demographics of Finland article. As Pakistanis aren't mentioned there and I think they should be. Although the citations are garbage, but other better ones can probably be found. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge per Adamant. There is not enough here or anywhere for a standalone article. Lightburst (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Adamant (same for all these). Too much of a random "Intersection of X and Y" article. This would not be the case for a more substantial group (such as Estonians), but Pakistanis is stretching it too far. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ethnic groups in Indonesia. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Indonesia[edit]

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

No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Demographics of Indonesia as they aren't mentioned there and I don't see why they shouldn't be. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demographics of Indonesia. There is not enough here for a standalone article but the merge target can handle it. Nothing notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ethnic groups in Indonesia, other ethnicities like Chinese, Arab, and Indian are there. The demographics article is too broad. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stratford, Connecticut#Government. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford town council[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stratford,_Connecticut#Government, not large enough town to need an inevitably out-of-date separate page for its council. Reywas92^Talk 02:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Demographics of Jordan. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 18:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Jordan[edit]

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

No coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of merge to Demographics of Jordan. There is not enough here or anywhere for an article. Nothing notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Demographics of Ukraine. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 18:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Ukraine[edit]

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

Too little diaspora for a separate article. See Overseas Pakistanis. Störm (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of merge to Demographics of Ukraine. There is not enough here or anywhere for an article. Nothing notable. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timber Meadows, Texas[edit]

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

Small subdivision/housing development/neighborhood [13] that lacks significant coverage for WP:GEOLAND2 notability. All links on page are nonspecific to the neighborhood and zero coverage found in newspapers.com. Reywas92^Talk 06:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Coverage is entirely routine - what districts it's in, who's their representative, the post office it shares with a big city, etc. Bearian (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neighborhood has received only run-of-the-mill coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azad Samaj Party[edit]

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

Too soon. Not notable. Notability not inherited. DTM (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, alternatively Merge with Bhim Army. Does seem like a case of WP:TOOSOON also WP:CRYSTAL. Sources mostly explain it as a potential political arm of the Bhim Army. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support AZAD SAMAJ PARTY, IT"s a mission for bahujan socoety — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.237.247.218 (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand that the mission is important, but you should read the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause DTM (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because you support any party doesn't mean that it should be existing on Wikipedia. Instead it should have some eligibility to be there on Wikipedia. Thanks Hellar (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be deleted as the article lacks notablity. Hellar (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable-- Jay ❯❯❯ Talk 23:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Notable. Needs cleanup. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pyke, Idaho[edit]

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

As best I can determine, this was just a spot on the UP line west out of St. Anthony: there's no evidence there was ever anything here and precious little room for it, but it does seem that it shows up in UP rate catalogues. Searching was heavily impeded by last name hits on a couple of widely cited people and legal cases. Mangoe (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No results with keywords St Anthony or Union Pacific in newspapers.com either. Reywas92^Talk 07:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability here for a standalone article. Does not pass SNG or GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wrote this one a while ago, but I've changed my standards since then, and this place doesn't meet them. The only other references to it that I could find are the aforementioned rate catalogues and rail station indexes and one map from 1948 - which seems to be more of a railroad map than a road map. (And I only found that one after going through a lot of maps that didn't include it.) My best guess is that this was a railway siding of some sort, but at any rate there's little evidence it was ever a populated place. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of anything more than a railroad-related landmark. –dlthewave ☎ 03:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 03:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hattrick Public School[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a high school, to meet WP:GNG or any other part of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is within scope- it is an opening 10+2 school- and it already has children over 11, students studying ISCED#2 which is our definition of a high school We are allowed to include kindergarten if they are notable. As for GNG- Google gives 485 hits] The first hit discusses how this is a first and opens a new direction for Kashmiri education and quotes from ministers. We just need someone to write the article. ClemRutter (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is atrocious and we have come to realize that creating articles on every secondary school in the world is an undoable goal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this RfC on secondary school notability. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since 2017, according to this, a school is not notable just because it exists. There are only primary sources and passing mentions (besides the 2nd one). Analog Horror, (Speak) 18:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Woman's Eye[edit]

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

This doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Bringing to AfD as I may have missed something in translation. Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I imagine that the title of the article is a nonce translation of Kadın gözüyle fotoğraf or similar. There are a lot of ghits for Kadın gözüyle fotoğraf, but unfortunately I can't read Turkish and therefore am reluctant to evaluate them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no RS about this subject whatsoever. Comment. No particular judgement, but the sourcing seems to be insufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So this, for example, is not a reliable source? -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably an OK source, but it only tells this group of women photographers made an exhibition. Please provide in-line citation to several RS on the page, with translation of source names and titles to English, so it will be clear they are good sources and what they say. Otherwise, this page will probably be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entirety of the article is what the group is and does. Without any information about how the work has been received, the impact it has had, or lasting external coverage, there is no evidence of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Lacks inline WP:RS. Topic is potentially notable, so I'd happily reconsider if more sources are found. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quaiser Khalid[edit]

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

This article clearly fails WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Fixing it would require deleting it and starting over. BonkHindrance (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yikes, looks like this article turned in to a hot mess since I approved it out of AfC a few years ago. I disagree with the assesment that the subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Looks like he's got some news coverage and winning the Sahitya Academy Award (one of the highest literary honors in India) is alone probably enough. I don't think it needs to be rewritten. However, I am about to deep dive and slash and burn in hopes of avoiding sorched Earth Sulfurboy (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: Thank you! BonkHindrance (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I've given the article quite the buzz cut so hopefully that's enough to alleviate pov concerns. I'm going to let other editors vote on this though since I hold an inherent bias from all the swamp draining and the fact that I originally approved it out of AfC in '17. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at it now, NPOV would most likely make it a Stub. Best call would be delete. We will see soon. JAZHAZHANDZWIKI (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Invalid arguments for keeping (e.g., that the article has been around a long time, or that participants have "heard of" the subject in an anecdotal sense, or that this "is an election year") are given no weight. The remaining consensus is for deletion. No prejudice against refunding to draft if any editor believes that a substantial rewrite can overcome the deficiencies identified. BD2412 T 15:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Iversen[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)).

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

Highly promotional tone, low notability, reliant on self-published material. Brownsc (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and non-notable DGG ( talk ) 11:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is 14 years old. It seems a bit redundant to delete it now. The article has existed for years. I think it's notable enough as it is documenting a public figure. (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2020
Keep: Per MoonlightTulsi. Self-published & a few primary sources should be removed. Her YouTube account is an external source. Othen than that, the article is good enough to pass Wikipedia:NJOURNALIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd heard Kim Iversen's name mentioned a few times in passing by other journalists and political commentators and one of her videos just popped up for me in a YouTube "Recommended" list. I appreciated being able to learn at least something about her at Wikipedia. I don't see a compelling reason to delete this article. PCMartinSeattle (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kim is a recognized radio and new media journalist. I don't see any reason to delete this article. lodragandraoidh 23:55 15 March 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have arguments based on policy, please, not the age of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, article fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST, all references are either passing mentions, primary sources or unreliable. Often, they are all three at once. The Keep votes are so stunningly awful the above conversation probably qualifies as a Delete per NOTAVOTE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC) I actually did a bit more digging and I found this: [14] article by Bellingcat, which contributes a lengthy paragraph towards Iversen being paid by a Pro-Bashar al-Assad lobby. This, combined with the Austin 360 article already referenced in the article, might be enough for her to pass GNG. However, the latter article is suspiciously promotional in tone, and the article has been so heavily brigaded it might need to be WP:TNT deleted anyway, and if it stays it definitely needs to be Semi-protected to prevent vandalism. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for similar reasons to Devonian Wombat. Two sources might slightly be enough for WP:GNG, but it would probably just be a permanant stub and not worth keeping. Also, there person above who is going off about the nominator being a stalker needs to fix their tone and learn what makes an article notable, instead of spouting none sense and making accusations. Same goes for the users who are saying the article sould be kept because she's "amazing." --Adamant1 (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why Wikipedia would shut down Kim Iversen’s page! She is a professional progressive journalist who’s voice is valued and appreciated by thousands! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkinInGame (talk • contribs) 05:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Kim is an influential progressive political commentator. I'm interested in reading wikipedia articles about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.112.77.185 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Kim. This page is fine and gives information I want to know about her. Deleting her would be capitulating to the hatred of some bad faith anon.Mattisx (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim is an amazing journalist and astrologer. Keep free speech alive! Nilsa toledo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilsa Toledo (talk • contribs) 04:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems fine and does not seem like material fit for deletion. It's an article about a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekDudage138 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the page up and DO NOT CAPITULATE TO STALKERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:1546:6DFA:CCCE:9936:9E0D (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete this page. Kim is great. Delete/banish/block the stalker who is trying to get her page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.252.252 (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! This is a real person, I know this person & they should not be erased based on a lone individual who is working maliciously to harm the public image of this individual by getting them erased. They are a progressive radio host & the information in their Wikipedia page pertains to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:840:1d40:592e:8683:9f4f:f5c3 (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. Influential online commentator who has a growing platform and audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.56.174 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not delete she is very famous and has a huger audience then many of the other people who have articles on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.10.141 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like someone is heavily canvassing here. Dorama285 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: !votes that are obviously canvassed and do not refer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines will most likely be given no weight by the closing administrator. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These comments above are hilarious. You can definitely tell that those were also sock'ed. This is some WikiPR level stupidness. Saying things like "Delete/banish/block the stalker" or "a lone individual who is working maliciously to harm the public image" isn't going to be taken seriously. Can we just wrap this up as blatant advertising / WP:CANVAS? dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see even one of the first "keep" votes was also from a single-purpose account. Dorama285 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Iversen's bio has been around since 2006 and has had no complaints until now. This is an election year, and she is easily one of Tulsi Gabbard's most influential supporters. This Buzzfeed article credits her with bringing Tulsi to the attention of the public, mentioning her alongside Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan. I would be wary of making big moves like deletion of a longstanding bio during an election year if it is even slightly possible the sudden urge to delete, or the !votes in support, might be politically motivated. The media hates Tulsi, as does the DNC, given that they claim there are only two candidates when in fact Tulsi is still running. Wikipedia needs to be careful about appearing sexist or politically biased, even though the editing pool is 85% male and, composed of humans, biased AF. This deletion discussion can wait until after the election, IMO. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article only mentions Iversen in passing, and even that is within a quote. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Enough coverage to establish notability as a media personality. Not that I feel comfortable taking the side of the obvious vote canvassers here... 1292simon (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GREENSOLE[edit]

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

Unremarkable company, fails WP:ORG. Previously created as Greensole Foundation by this sock KartikeyaS (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation has sustained coverage in multiple independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Mccapra and the fact that it has been mentioned by BBC, Forbes, and nine legitimate sources, meaning that the article has significant coverage. Analog Horror, (Speak) 17:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Greensole, the title is in caps because the name "Greensole" got salted due to spam. This article is fine, though. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 03:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mccapra (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has enough coverage on good news websites like: BBC News, Babson.edu, Forbes, Vogue, DNA India, Milaap, Indiatimes, Entrepreneur and etc.GRIPK (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waqidi Falicoff[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd by SwisterTwister with the reason "Over 5 years of templated concerns and none of it has changed beyond what's here and none of it is significant for a convincing article; sources examined show triviality and nothing else beyond." PROD was contested by @WFalicoff (who is presumably also the article's subject?) FASTILY 09:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Let's look at the sources presented here:

Source	Independent	Reliable	Significant coverage
"The Harry Fox Agency". Harryfox.com. Retrieved 2012-04-16.	No, talent agency	No	No, can't even find his page here.
"Film Composers in America", A filmography 1911-1970 by Clifford McCarty	Probably	Maybe	Maybe
http://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/27618/Statesman%2c%20V.11%2c%20n.%2017.pdf?sequence=1	Probably	No (school newspaper)	Yes, but doesn't mention Falicoff by that name, calls him William Faliks.
http://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/27620/Statesman%2c%20V.11%2c%20n.%2019.pdf?sequence=1	Probably	No (school newspaper)	Yes, but doesn't mention Falicoff by that name, just calls him William.
"FZ Videography". Globalia.net. Retrieved 2012-04-16.	Maybe	No	No (just list page)
The Broadway League. "The official source for Broadway Information". IBDB. Retrieved 2012-04-16.	Yes	Yes	No. Just list item.
The Broadway League. "Paul Sills' Story Theatre \| IBDB: The official source for Broadway Information". IBDB. Retrieved 2012-04-16.	Yes	Yes	No. Not even mentioned
"Jackson Browne Performance Chronology". Ghostsontheroad.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-04-16.	Yes	No	No, doesn't seem to be relevant in any sense
"Rock Music Posters - Memorabilia, Concert Poster, Silkscreen, Poster Art". PosterScene. Retrieved 2012-04-16.	No (their own poster)	No	No, just a poster.
"Waqidi's Musical Bio « Muswell Hill Music". Muswellhillmusic.com. Retrieved 2012-04-16.	No (his own site)	Maybe	Yes

Summary: Fails GNG. There has been plenty of time and still we don't have multiple reliable independent sources. We have two writeups of gigs at the university in a school newspaper from when he was a student, some listings in database sites and the subject's own website. --Slashme (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Slashme's analysis of sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. I found a couple more sources involving his work for the 1992 Olympic Games in this peer reviewed journal article, The Torch of Technology: The Science Behind the '92 Olympic. Vol. 14(10). July 1992. p. 42-44. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)}, and a review of his work in variety magazine Legitimate: Zev Bufman Has 'Story' For B'way, With L.A. Troupe. Vol. 260(2). August 26, 1970. p. 49. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help). Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source review above pretty much lays out the reasons this doesn't add up to significant coverage. I was unable to vet the two sources cited by the keep vote above, but the titles imply the articles are not about this person, but about something else where he may be mentioned within. A bit problematic researching in that this subject has gone by multiple names over the years. He obviously has had a long career and there are possibly more sources that verify existence under all three names, but the nature of the coverage is small time, trivial or tangential. If something significant existed it likely would have shown up over the years. Plus, it's a vanity page, and the discussions on the article creator's talk page reveal the problems getting this article past copyright violations and promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Consensus here, and previous precedent is that publication of academic books or peer-reviewed articles is part of the regular work of professors and not in itself sufficient to establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Torsten Liem[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this Osteopath. All the very many references show that he exists and is a member of very many ostopathic organisations. Nothing shows that he is notable. I draftified this article which was moved to mainspace without review, but its author simply moved it back into mainspace. It would have been much better as a Draft to try and find better sources, but now it is in mainspace, the only option is deletion as it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that there is no article on him in the German wiki but there are English-language profiles on him at multiple publishing sites leads to believe this is a promotional article to push his many textbooks. I don't think his G-index or H-index are high enough to qualify him as an academic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dear Velella and —Мандичка, thank you for your comments. I am new to Wikipedia and relocated the site to the mainspace a second time out of unknowingness. I am willing to provide further information to underscore the notability of Torsten Liem as an Osteopath. What kind of references and information would be suitable for that? Torsten Liem is arguably the most notable Osteopath in Germany. This school is renowned and provided the first university education for osteopathy in Germany. His textbooks are used overarchingly in German osteopathic education. He co-edited English-language books with prestigious osteopaths from the US (Anthony Chila), Belgium (Patrick Van Den Heede), Italy (Paolo Tozzi) and so on. He learned from pioneers of the osteopathic profession (like Viola Frymann and Robert Fulford) and maintains relations to osteopaths all around the globe (like Jean-Pierre Barral, Prof. Hollis King, Prof. Renzo Molinari). He initiates the largest annual osteopathic conference in Europe which is advertised by institutions like the Canadian Federation of Osteopaths and is visited by renowned osteopaths from all around the globe. Concerning his scientific credibility, Torsten Liem is the Founder of the German Journal Osteopathische Medizin (Osteopathic Medicine) and is a Member of the Advisory Board of the International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (both being one of the two most read osteopathic journals). In my opinion, his global involvement within the osteopathic profession, education, and science justifies his occurrence within Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is a German article on Torsten Liem in German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsten_Liem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EW.BL. (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My university library got several hits on him in peer reviewed German language medical journals. I don't speak/read German, but these sources may (or may not) indicate notability. See:

Schmidt, Sabine (2001). Zeitschriftenneugründung “Osteopathische Medizin”. Vol. 39(1). p. 9-10. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
Bischoff, H. (2003). Orthopädie und Manuelle Medizin. Vol. 41(4). p. 299-300. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
MM aktuell. Vol. 38(4). 2000. p. 258-266. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
Informationen¶Ärztevereinigung für Manuelle Medizin – Ärzteseminar Berlin (ÄMM). Vol. 40(6). 2002. p. r87-r103. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)

Hopefully someone with journal access who speaks German can take a look at these. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. The subject has published many peer-reviewed articles and books in his field. --BonkHindrance (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NACADEMIC, publication does not confer notability. Only reception to that publication (eg, unusually high citation counts or significant coverage of the person's works or ideas) would do that. b uidhe 02:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the article is clearly promotional and has mainly been edited by a single article editor, who came here to vote keep and spewed a bunch of none sense about why he's notable. Its pretty obvious he isn't though. Name dropping a bunch of people no one has heard of to establish faux notability instead of citing reliable sources just proves it. That said, I went with weak delete because there are the few German journal articles that might go toward notability. Although, it's doubtful and they probably wouldn't be enough on their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist to see if anyone wants to confirm whether or not he meets WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia guidelines for academic notability one of the eight criteria must be fulfilled. Torsten Liem satisfies criteria 4 (“The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. (…) Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education”). His textbooks on cranial (Praxis der Kraniosakralen Osteopathie, 2019, Thieme, Stuttgart, ISBN 978-3-13-240461-8), visceral (Leitfaden viszerale Osteopathie, 2013, Elsevier, München, ISBN 978-3-437-56013-2), and parietal (Leitfaden Osteopathie: Parietale Techniken, 2016, Elsevier, München, ISBN 978-3-437-55783-5) osteopathy are primarily used by the two institutions of higher education offering osteopathy in Germany (Dresden International University and Fresenius University of Applied Sciences). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EW.BL. (talk • contribs)

Delete Fails WP:PROF, and nothing else seems applicable. Books being used at two schools is not the level of influence that WP:PROF#C4 is looking for. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the criteria of academic notability. Criteria #4 is not meant in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KLM Telephone[edit]

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

Local telephone company, I can find no evidence of notability for this one. Does not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, as the coverage I can find is routine coverage, mostly based announcements from when it was bought out, and old listings in state government business directories, both of which would be considered routine. The rest of the coverage I can find is self-published, mostly by the current owner, although some by the entity. These also do not demonstrate notability. I find it telling that the organization's parent company does not have an article. Hog Farm (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Although one could argue the company has historical significance in some way, but I'm not the one to argue it and there aren't any in-depth reliable sources to establish notability anyway. There is an FCC record that discusses them sorta in-depth, but that's not enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, after extended time for discussion. BD2412 T 02:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick, Swansea[edit]

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

Deprodded by user:Necrothesp with a suggestion to bring it to AfD. I can’t find any sources to suggest that this topic is notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Swansea, no clear evidence a separate article is needed for neighborhood of mid-sized city. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not on OS maps and nothing at Vision of Britain, Google mainly brings up a pub but I agree I can't find anything much on this. Google Books does return Brunswick Street but even then not much. If redirected Castle, Swansea would probably be a better location since it seems to be in that community so that's more specific than Swansea but there doesn't appear to be anything to say about it that's verifiable, if it was named on maps it could be mentioned in the community but since it isn't even that fails WP:V. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CS, not mentioned in Castle, Swansea or Swansea articles, little if anything in the way of verifiable information about this place exists. b uidhe 05:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 01:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an unsourced stub with no redirect target, no indication it passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yubo Ruan[edit]

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

Is this 23-year-old entrepreneur sufficiently notable? Appears to have been quoted or referred to by a number of articles but only as a curiosity. As it stands, my own opinion is weak delete but I'd like to hear a discussion on this. --Nlu (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to showing notability. The article also relies too much on primary sources. The general rule is that most articles written on 12-year-olds are not of the sort that will add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Zhengzhou (October 1929)[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Heishiguan by the same editor, the only source appears to be a primary source Taiwanese book without page number. The only RS results I'm getting, for example this source, suggest that there was a battle in September 1930 which paved the way for the capture of Zengzhou, but I'm not able to confirm that fighting occurred in Zengzhou in 1929. (There was apparently fighting in Zengzhou in October 1948, but that isn't this). b uidhe 00:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 00:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 00:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No explanation why it happened, or any other sources beside the one in the bibliography. Analog Horror, (Speak) 17:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:V and WP:RS issues. Mztourist (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 21:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mddl Fngz[edit]

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

Non-notable rap group. Only presented sources are from MySpace. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally does not pass WP:GNG in any way. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 01:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GNG fail. Hog Farm (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing here to establish any level of notability to any standard. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the things about these kind of articles that violate WP:GARAGEBAND is that they are always filled up primary sources, passing mentions, and social media posts to make it look notable, this article is an example of that. Analog Horror, (Speak) 02:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no evidence they meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:MILL, WP:NBAND, and WP:GNG. Mixtapes? Myspace? Myspace!? Bearian (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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