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. See if you can improve it first, even using German sources with a translator. Just because it's not notable in your own language or your own music charts doesn't mean it's not notable at all and doesn't deserve an article in this language Wikipedia. Besides, Germans read English Wikipedia and vice versa :-)

Thanks for assuming good faith and working to improve Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erdling[edit]

Erdling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to fail WP:NBAND CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep the German Wikipedia article here has a lot more references and also indicates that their albums have charted on the German national charts which would be a pass of WP:NMUSICBIO criteria 2 (only one criteria needed). It's a weak keep because I don't know much about German music sources or German charts, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Just about notable in German (3 singles charting in lower reaches for 1 week), so they are a thing. But notable in English? No. Where do we draw the line when we 'import' notability? A band that has charted in Serbia? Nepal? Or only a G20 country? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I agree with poster above, German article is well referenced, even if the references are in German. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The band passes WP:NBAND crit 2 and there's enough coverage for WP:GNG. I have also found these: 1 and 2 and 3 (this one is quite long). Plus the links in the German Wiki (not all of them - some are not passing the requirements). Alexandermcnabb Notability is not determined by the language of the sources, but by the amount of coverage in any language in all the media passing WP:IRS. Best, Less Unless (talk) 15:43, 27 November 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 National Central University. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of National Central University[edit]

Associated Students of National Central University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable, functionally zero substantive English language coverage, and very little in Mandarin (passing mentions or non-independent sources). Originally considered proposing a merge, but all the relevant information is arguably in the National Central University page already (I added the Chinese name and founding date). The remaining info—the location of its office in the student activity center or its internal organization—do not appear to be relevant. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to National Central University. Student unions of universities are not considered inherently notable, and are generally not notable unless they receive substantial independent coverage meeting the WP:ORG criteria, as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:UNIGUIDE#Student life. I agree with the nominator that WP:Before shows little coverage in English or Chinese sources, but I do think the article title is a plausible search term and reasonable enough to be redirected to the article on the University per WP:ATD-R, as even the nominator themselves noted that the relevant information is in the university page already. -- Dps04 (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Dps04. Mccapra (talk) 04:13, 1 December 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bashirat Amoo[edit]

Bashirat Amoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

At best this is WP:TOOSOON. This is a WP:BLP on a footballer who has not yet made an appearance at senior level. I was not able to find sources that show that WP:GNG can be met. Spiderone 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and the references included are just routine coverage, so it also fails WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Happy to restore it if she make an appearance for the senior national team. Number 57 10:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the notability guidelines for now. Less Unless (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping based on sources found - please try and improve and go from there! Thanks. Missvain (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rieckhoff[edit]

Paul Rieckhoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was flagged as a non-encyclopedic (WP:TONE), self-written puff piece (WP:COI) more than 3 years ago and no attempt has been made to correct it. In addition, many things in the lede are unsubstantiated and appear to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. —Kerfuffler  cry
spy  07:20, 17 November 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 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep fails WP:SOLDIER but passes WP:BASIC, though cleanup is required. Mztourist (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the suvject clearly passes notability. The nominator is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nominator has an argument. BlueD954 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has references to an NPR review of his book and a profile by The Hill. There's also a small review from Publishers Weekly [1] while NYT has an article about his radio address for the Democratic Party [2] and an opinion columnist profiled him [3]. I think these references show that he is notable and he passes WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yanis Henin[edit]

Yanis Henin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON at best; three sources [4] [5] [6] confirm that he has not yet made his senior debut. He has been on the bench a couple of times but nothing more. I was not able to find any coverage that would allow him to be kept on the basis of WP:GNG. Spiderone 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 57 10:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL as per the nom. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG - can only find routine transfer announcements like this. Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papierfabrik Louisenthal,[edit]

Papierfabrik Louisenthal, (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no indication of meeting WP:NCORP. Claims in article are sourced to the company website. Google searches not finding WP:significant coverage. noq (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the article is inadequate and needs some work to be acceptable, the nominator somewhat misrepresents the source situation. I have done a 5 minute google search and have found the following sources:

• [7] an article in Münchner Merkur a reliable albeit regional newspaper
• [8] from Sächsische Zeitung, a significant newspaper from Saxony
• [9] from Dresdener Neueste Nachrichten, a minor newspaper from Saxony

In all three sources, coverage is significant. Now, in No.2, there might be concerns over independence but my cursory look through the sources has shown several additional articles which could be used. Overall, the subject meets WP:CORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & redirect to Giesecke+Devrient, in the process dialling down the promo. RS references notwithstanding, I can't see how this warrants a separate article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I could see keeping or merging. Am leaning towards merging, slightly. Balle010 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I too agree that if expanded this article could be kept, or if not merged. Skingo12 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can the comma be removed from the title? It's bothering me so much! Haha. —WikiVillager (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's annoying. It would have been best if it could have been removed before the deletion nomination, and I don't know why it wasn't done by anyone, such as the deletion nominator who presumably knows better than the article creator, but now we are here it's best to leave things alone. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It has been there for 320 years, so I would suggest more sources available. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; despite the fantastic edits that have happened to this article in the last couple weeks, it's still citing exclusively posts from the company itself. @Modussiccandi: I would !vote keep if you added refs to those newspapers you mentioned in your comment. jp×g 10:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I have added the sources and given the article a rudimentary make-over. It's still far from being "repaired" though. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have also added one independent secondary source in English to the very good edits done to this article. There are several others in German available as well. It appears to me that RS and notability are sufficiently covered to keep.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added one more short paragraph and independent source to the article.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not a single one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. But - the building itself appears notable based on its history and the mentions in some of the articles posted above by Modussiccandi. If the article is repurposed to be a lot more about the building, this is a Keep. But if the topic is the business based in the building, we haven't been able to locate references so the best suggestion is to merge to Giesecke+Devrient as above. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 30 November 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. consensus that the article is now at a reasonable quality Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NASA research[edit]

NASA research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested WP:PROD, so we'll have to do this the long way. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#NASA research article for the full discussion; this is an unsalvageably incoherent personal essay. It doesn't provide any kind of overview but just lists a few apparently randomly chosen anecdotes (Apollo 17 gets included but not Apollos 1–16, for instance, and there's not even a mention of most of NASA's core research areas like rocketry, computing and closed-environment life support); it's written in pure gibberish; and most importantly there's not a single thing mentioned here that isn't covered properly at the existing article on that topic. There's a legitimate argument that NASA research is a viable topic, but there's literally nothing salvageable on this page—even if it were rewritten into English rather than what I assume is a machine translation, it would still need to be completely rewritten from scratch since at present it gives hugely undue weight to the randomly-chosen examples.  ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Remagoxer (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (Except the nominator wouldn't know pure gibberish if they blarfihned echxed ienks. Accept no substitutes for the real thing.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wow. I came here wondering what someone could be thinking to delete an article by that name, found myself re-educated. Nothing to salvage. It's better, but still a fairly random collection of fields, nothing to indicate it's comprehensive (even in the present, let alone historically). I can think of a few fields it doesn't seem to include. If we keep it, we need to make the collection listed somehow systematic. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to this version. This article has received a number of edits from an editor who, based on his user page, is likely a non-native speaker of English and was working on the article for an academic course project. The article was arguably of higher quality before that editor began contributing, and I assume his course is over since since he hasn't edited the article for the last few months. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article was a complete and utter disaster. I've reverted to the last coherent version, which is still kind of a "meh" article, but at least now it is written competently in the English language and attempts to give an overview of NASA research. Previous !voters might want to look at it again and revise their conclusions accordingly. jp×g 03:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thanks to those who identified that the article had been inadvertently messed up by a bad rewrite: see here and here, and unless it all took place elsewhere, I think this student was done a disservice by not receiving feedback on his writing. I believe it is a viable overview topic and thus that the existing article should be rewritten to provide better coverage (with, of course, a lot of links to our articles on particular research programs) now that the urgent problem of its being so badly written has been fixed. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above and the improvements since the nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems like a good idea for an article, and if it is expanded, will keep content off the main NASA page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. The subject of the article is definitely notable. It just needs a lot of work and editors willing to do that work. Laval (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the fixes made and the topic's obvious notability. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:29, 28 November 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. Missvain (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William McMullen (RCAF officer)[edit]

William McMullen (RCAF officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of meeting WP:NSOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Northern Echo refs suffice GNG. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Articles in the local newspaper (albeit a prominent one) are not enough. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It's odd that he apparently wasn't posthumously awarded a medal of some sort; that would have at least bolstered a claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a local newspaper, a regional one, The Northern Echo, similar to the Yorkshire Post or The Evening Chronicle. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and lacks SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG, local hero only with no real notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Roxy. BlueD954 (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. The only significant coverage is in one regional newspaper. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Looks like an WP:1E. Having 3 refs written by a single source - The Northern Echo doesn't qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Less Unless (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. WP:MEMORIAL is also relevant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peacemaker and Less Unless. Northern Echo is good coverage, but not enough on its own. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough here to meet the guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#3. Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Macheboeuf[edit]

Macheboeuf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lackage of verifiable information Tonim 007 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - this is a disambiguation page so doesn't need to have 'verifiable information' Spiderone 16:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Spiderone. I'm not sure that putting a speedy deletion tag on the AfD itself is the right way to handle this so I am removing that. That is in no way an endorsement of the AfD itself. The speedy got transcluded into the deletion sorting list and that's probably not a good thing. If I am wrong about this then please just put it back. I know that speedy deletion is not meant to be replaced but if it was the right approach here then please just do it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep At the risk of piling on, I believe this nomination was done in error. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per above. Both articles are suitably referenced. jp×g 03:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#3 with no prejudice against a properly done renomination. Mz7 (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Galván Castillo[edit]

Gonzalo Galván Castillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lack of Information Tonim 007 (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tonim 007 (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roman Catholic bishops are considered to be notable. Thank You-RFD (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep nom did not WP:BEFORE, this appears to be a nonsense nom. Praxidicae (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - no valid reason for deletion provided. I'm not an expert on the subject but there are a few sources coming up which might be enough to build a biography from [10] [11] [12] Spiderone 15:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is built on verifiability and independent, reliable, quality third partly sources giving indepth coverage, that is lacking here. The assumption that all Catholic bishops are notable is not being born out by the sourcing we actual see in the articles. This assumption has given us a lot of sub-stub articles with no substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Probably worth noting that the nominator has been submitting a large volume of spurious AfDs lately, and this article seems to have enough sources (plus the arguably inherent notability of the subject). jp×g 04:30, 25 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Dubey[edit]

Aman Dubey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am not aware of any criteria that makes a social media spokesperson for a sub-party notable but this fails WP:NPOL by a mile (or at least as it appears to me.) He's never been elected to a position that qualifies under NPOL and he has no actual coverage. Being a member of INC is in and of itself not even a claim of importance either. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I will note that this piece cited in the article is possibly significant coverage, but I don't speak Hindi. Barring more clearly relevant Hindi sources, I agree that Dubey fails the notability requirements based on a look at English sources. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a quote from him (I translated it), nothing actually significant. The rest has nothing to do with him. Praxidicae (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: faisl WP:NPOL ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete" Dubey fails the notability requirements based when we look at the sources. Eric Carr (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being social media spokesperson for a political party's youth chapter is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, and the sources are not about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG in lieu: they all just quote him as a giver of soundbite in articles whose primary subject is somebody or something else. People aren't notable just because they get quoted in the media: they have to be the subject being spoken about in a source before it counts as support for notability, not the person doing the speaking about a different subject. Bearcat (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to WP:DC.

Karam06 (talk) 03:34, 27 November 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 Theoretical plate#Distillation columns. Missvain (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Van Winkle's correlation[edit]

Van Winkle's correlation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can verify that the equation is given in the one source cited, Chemical Engineering Design, with no more information than has been reproduced in this article (and one example of the equation's usage). However, I can find no other sources which discuss this topic (at least, not with the given name). The equation was first given in a 1972 publication by Van Winkle, MacFarland and Sigmund, but I do not think one publication and half a textbook page satisfy notability requirements (either GNG or science-specific). — Bilorv (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From my searches, I believe I can confirm that the cited textbook is the only publication to even use this term. A reference to the existence of the formula could be made at Theoretical plate#Distillation columns, but there seems to be no case for accepting this as a coinage, or having a standalone article for it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Theoretical plate#Distillation columns. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as discussed above. It's a bit too technical and limited to one particular usage to have an article on its own. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 24 November 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 Musical selections in The Wizard of Oz. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Optimistic Voices[edit]

Optimistic Voices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The page is unsourced. It is a legacy unsourced page pre-dating 2007, back when Wikipedia seemed perfectly happy to be an odd collection of original research, commentary related to popular culture, and other things we no longer allow to stand without actual 3rd-party sourcing. The redirect from The Rhythmettes is even more problematic, since the only group by that name I was able to find substantial sourcing on did not form until 1950, and this article makes no mention of this group. I went looking for sources for this, but most of what I found was related to other uses of this term, or a Youtube video of Natalie Cole singing this song in 2006. We lack the sourcing to demonstrate notability, and the deep analysis about this song "breaking the forth wall" seems original research unless we can find a reliable source where someone states that. One should not build articles on film songs directly by watching a film and then typing up one's reactions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the Rhythmettes redirect for deletion; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 24. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third Google Books result 1 for "Rhythmettes" provides information on the 1930s group and distinguishes it from later groups. I have discussed it further at the redirect discussion page. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:07, 26 November 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 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is haphazard original research, notability is not demonstrated. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable song, would be a sub-listing in the Wizard of Oz article at best. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per accurate description by John Pack Lambert. The Wizard of Oz is obviously notable, but not everything is notable that is related to it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is original research and offers no evidence that the song is notable outside of Wizard of Oz. If anyone is particularly concerned about alternatives to deletion, the title could conceivably be redirected to the film, but there is also no evidence that the song's use there is more important than its use anywhere else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Musical selections in The Wizard of Oz. This is arguably the least prominent original vocal song in the film, but a redirect to the article about the film's music seems appropriate per WP:NSONG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an extremely long article with only 9 citation notes. It contains lots of statements that need better sourcing than is currently present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That can be addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondRemley39 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Metropolitan90, just enhancing the article with info about the three writers (that I can provide and reference). The fact that Herbert Stothart, who won an Oscar for scoring the film, wrote this song with Arlen, who also won an Oscar for the film, and with lyricist Yip Harburg, who... ditto marks, is a detail that is worth preserving--or so Harburg's biographer (p. 146-147) leads me to think. Harburg and Arlen are considered the songwriters of The Wizard of Oz, so this number being different should be recorded (and I can and will source). I wish I had a book on Arlen to check, but I don't. I'll make a case that it's worth preserving, too, because stage versions of the Wizard of Oz are based on the musical; the people putting together the shows will look for it; virtually everything of Wizard of Oz is of interest to a great many people. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable song, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Musical selections in The Wizard of Oz: A more valid WP:ATD per Metropolitan90 and DiamondRemley39. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 28 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Ortiz-Garay[edit]

Jorge Ortiz-Garay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

routine obits mostly in local papers -- being first US priest to die of covid is not intrinsically notable DGG ( talk ) 13:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Other than dying from Covid, a rather run-of-the-mill priest career. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I guess his real chance of being notable is that he was the first Catholic priest in the US to die of COVID. There was a lot of reliable coverage, so I thought it was worth a try. Sometimes being first at something is what makes you notable, even if sadly, it is dying. Pollstart (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't really see that being the first Catholic priest in the United States to die because of COVID-19 consitutes notability. If he had been the first one in the world, that might have been different. Deb (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the sources cover the same event - the subjects death. Looks like a fair WP:1E. Less Unless (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unfortunately as per WP:1E, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 28 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magali Elise Roques[edit]

Magali Elise Roques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject is a fairly junior French academic (2012 PhD), was a postdoc until 2019. She has been involved in a significant plagiarism controversy this year, and several of her journal papers have been retracted. The article was originally deleted as G10 (I believe incorrectly), and the deletion was overturned at WP:DRV, see Nov 16, 2020 section there. IMO, minus the plagiarism controversy, the subject is not yet notable academically. The article lists several awards, but they are basically all PhD/postdoc level fellowships which WP:PROF specifically excludes from contributing to academic notability. The only possible exception is the Prix Jeunes Chercheurs from Fondation des Treilles (2017). However, the foundation's website[13] shows that this is also an award for finishing PhD students and postdocs, so not relevant for academic notability under WP:PROF. I am not seeing much of anything else to indicate academic notability as such, e.g. published reviews (minus the discussion of plagiarism), high citability, etc. The plagiarism case did receive coverage, but to me this situation looks like a WP:BIO1E case with significant negative BLP implications. I think that the plagiarism incidents deserves to be included in List of scientific misconduct incidents, but I don't believe that a separate biographical article about the subject is warranted here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Please note that there's also a biologist by the name 'Magali Roques' unrelated to the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have been part of the discussions on several talk pages and the speedy deletion DRV page. I agree with Nsk92, especially the point regarding WP:BIO1E (edit: and WP:PSEUDO) with negative BLP consequences. I support including this case in the List of scientific misconduct incidents (or the humanities equivalent of it). FlybellFly (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was very disappointed to see that this had been overturned at DRV. WP:G10 specifically notes "Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met." As such this should not have been restored, especially since a supermajority endorsed the close, in a similar vein as to how WP:G12 wouldn't be restored if a strong minority of users familiar with copyright endorsed. I think it still qualifies for speedy deletion, but since we're here and there's been a DRV, I must note that she fails WP:BLP1E, and I still think that this qualifies as an attack page since she's otherwise not notable under WP:NPROF or WP:GNG and the page serves no other purpose. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have added an entry about the subject to List of scientific misconduct incidents#Philosophy. Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article needs more on the plagarism scandal, rather than a long-winded list of what she's published. If the scandal receives enough coverage, could be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my concerns explained at WP:DRV: "I came across this article while clearing WP:RFPP, where Lightbluerain had requested semiprotection due to vandalism concerns. Instead of protecting it, I deleted the page because it appeared to be a largely negative WP:COATRACK article about a BLP, intended to focus entirely on the plagiarism controversy concerning this person. I don't agree that the coverage of the plagiarism issues, at least what was included in citations in the article, is sufficient to meet the WP:GNG and she does not appear to be sufficiently notable for an article outside of that, which is why I've asked Melchior2006 to bring it to DRV." I understand the DRV result, but still believe the article ought to be deleted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is possible to have articles about people famous only for academic misconduct, but it needs to rise above run-of-the-mill incidents: there needs to be long-term and ongoing interest in the case, not just an incident or incidents reported at the time of discovery. In this case, that standard hasn't yet been met. And there's no evidence of being notable in other ways. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I said at the DRV: I looked up the subject, and I do not see any way that the subject could pass WP:PROF. If the retracted publications had all been legitimate, the record would still be one of an unremarkable early-career academic. (There is another Magali Roques, a cell biologist at Universität Bern, who is much more prominent than the philosopher on Google Scholar.) The plagiarism incident has not itself attracted significant attention — the Daily Nous post mentioned by FlybellFly is all I can find. Retraction Watch just points to the Daily Nous without doing a writeup of their own [14]. This isn't enough coverage to warrant an article on the incident, and I'm highly dubious that the Daily Nous is a good source for WP:BLP material, whether that content is in a biography or an article on an event. Maybe the situation will change, but right now I don't even see grounds to describe the incident within another article, let alone devote a page to it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the inclusion in List of scientific misconduct incidents. I think that Daily Nous is reasonable enough as an RS, but certainly would not have been sifficient as a lone source for including the info about this case in the list. However, there is also an 18-page article in 'Vivarium', written by the Editorial Board (in the same issue of the journal where their three retraction notices appear). That article analyzes the case in great detail. For me that article, rather than the Daily Nous piece, serves as the main justification for including the case in List of scientific misconduct incidents. Nsk92 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivarium isn't a secondary source in this instance. I would remove that from the list. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's substantial, but it's also primary, which makes me uncomfortable about relying upon it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete one year in as a professor with many of her publications retracted, but that not getting enough coverage on its own, there is no actual notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:PROF. I did some looking and can make a weak argument for WP:N, but given it's largely a negative BLP (in effect) even in my rather inclusionist view of Wikipedia, I don't think we should have this article. I'm firm in the opinion it doesn't qualify as an attack page however. "...material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced" doesn't seem to match unless someone knows more about the creator of the article than me. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 26 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Children's Miracle Network Games Bundle[edit]

Microsoft Children's Miracle Network Games Bundle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable video game bundle consisting of pre-existing games. Fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the games might be notable in their own right but there is no evidence to suggest that this compilation itself passes WP:GNG Spiderone 12:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - not independently notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could be a one line listing under each game, if they warrant an article. Nothing of note otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What? Why does this article exist? Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am stunned to see that this article existed for 11 years, just wow. Even the whole DEPROD reason was absurd itself, to put it lightly. The subject completely fails WP:GNG, wasn't able to find anything. These bundled games are notable separately, but together in this form? Absolutely nope. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weren’t the notability standards lower back in the day? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article clearly fails WP:GNG, time to go. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Sonic is actually a notable franchise, so... nah, just kidding. Delete! Le Panini ^Talk 05:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like a SNOW closure at this rate. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:51, 29 November 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. Missvain (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Morning (newsletter)[edit]

Monday Morning (newsletter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NMEDIA, WP:NNEWSPAPER. The only source in the article is a primary source, their own website. Apart from that there is no significant coverage of the newspaper in secondary RS. Also important to note is that campus newspapers are very rarely notable as per University article guideline. Roller26 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG. I found this coverage, but not much else to contribute to establishing notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:19, 1 December 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parvathi Menon[edit]

Parvathi Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

She has done only cameos or small roles so far. No major works to pass WP:NACTOR or significant coverage to pass WP:GNG - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG Eric Carr (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a bunch of minor roles do not add up to an actress being notable. If only we could get this applied to actresses and actors who had only minor in Hollywood, but that is another issue for another day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanyar Mohebbi[edit]

Jahanyar Mohebbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I failed to see how this passes WP:GNG regardless of the sources provided. Clearly fails the criteria we have for WP:NFOOTBALL. And appears to be borderline WP:PROMOTION in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and is a formatting mess.Eric Carr (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - has never held a notable position in football; a non-notable technical analyst/youth coach Spiderone 19:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG, not notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. May also be an autobiography judging by the creator's username. Number 57 10:24, 27 November 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 Italian Army 1975 reform. Feel free to merge into Italian Army 1975 reform or whatever article you all deem appropriate. Thanks for participating! Missvain (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the Italian Army in 1974[edit]

Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

We have Italian Army 1975 reform, which gives a very detailed overview of the structure of the Italian Army before and after the reform. Fine, but then we also have Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 and Structure of the Italian Army in 1977, which are two articles lacking notability and duplicating the info in the "reform" article.

This nomination is for both the 1974 and 1977 article. Fram (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both into Italian Army 1975 reform to avoid duplication. Miniapolis 23:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both into Italian Army 1975 reform, neither page is notable; we don't need flag-farms like this.Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Has merit and verifiable sources, but still needs improvement. BlueD954 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per Mztourist and Fram. Neither appear independently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "merge" would be the same as a "redirect" in reality. Compare Structure of the Italian Army in 1974#Army General Staff and Italian Army 1975 reform#Army General Staff (and so on) to see the striking similarity (but the "reform" page is the better by far, as it actually indicates the changes, which otherwise requires a constant switching between two pages). Fram (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I came here after seeing WP:ANI#User:Fram abusive behaviour, and before leaving my comment there.

  I agree that this article has problems. If I were offering advice on User talk:Noclador, or Talk:Structure of the Italian Army in 1974, I'd suggest the most important weaknesses are that the lede paragraph doesn't help readers understand why the topic is notable, or why 1974 was a particularly important year.

  I am going to offer further comments at WPANI, but I think it is unfortunate that nominator Fram didn't recognize that Noclador, the author of this and quite a few similar articles, has clearly made very considerable good faith efforts to try to improve the wikipedia's coverage of these cold war related topics. I think it is unfortunate they didn't try to help them understand how their future efforts could be best directed in work that more closely measured up to what we expect from this kind of article. Geo Swan (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both Any particular notability asserted here of the structure of the Italian Army in these specific years is conferred by the 1975 reforms, the page for which already contains the relevant information about what was changed. The article appears to be have been created in good faith, but this is a clear-cut example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Italian Army 1975 reform - as mentioned by others, not sure what the logic is for having something focussed on this particular year - 1975 reforms seem more pivotal. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all (or just redirect). The two articles reflecting the structure before and after the change might have had merit, but it looks to me as if most of the content of the two articles under discussion is already in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both as above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This is like a recipe: 1974 are the ingredients, 1975 are the instructions, 1977 is the result. You take one away, the recipe becomes a difficult guessing game. You want to know what the Italian Army structure was before the 1975 reform? You can find out, from the 1975 article, if you spend hours extracting that data. You want to know what the result of the reform was - you have to spend more hours to separate that info from the rest of the 1975 article. You want to merge all three into one - then you get a approximately 560,000 bytes long article, which is 5x times bigger than wikipedia suggests. So, that's all my comment, because military-topic ignorant stalker / harasser Fram is about to come here and harass me like in every discussion since I stopped her 1989 military organizations mass deletions obsession from succeeding. Btw. I am the third wikiproject military history editor driven off wikipedia by her stalking / harassment. Ciao. noclador (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

noclador this is a clear breach of WP:NPA. You have tried every other avenue to stop Fram from nominating your articles for deletion and failed. If you can't handle the AFD process then its probably time you took a WP:Wikibreak. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixed improper formatting. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Object-oriented programming. Sandstein 19:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Object-oriented software engineering[edit]

Object-oriented software engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contrary to what the title suggests, this article is not about a generic term, but about a specific methodology (and book of the same name). However, the only sourced content is about object-oriented programming in general. A web search turned up mostly pdfs of the book and a few blogs, but I could not find good sources. Thus, it seems to me that this fails verifiability and notability. PJvanMill)talk( 21:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PJvanMill)talk( 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is written like a tutorial and is not WP:VERIFIABLE. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this is a puff piece about Jacobson's approach. The article attempts to inherit notability from the broad concept of object-oriented programming which has a similar title. It's basically coatracking off another article and has demonstrated no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to suggest notability. Searches for such coverage turn up very little when restricted to Jacobson's approach. It perhaps merits a line in the aforementioned similarly titled article. SITH (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is deleted, this title could be redirected to object-oriented programming as a related term. Natg 19 (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then add a redirect to Object-oriented programming which is what the first source is about anyway, just puff for Jacobson and his book. KylieTastic (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Batman family enemies#Foes of lesser renown. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zeiss (comics)[edit]

Zeiss (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale, so here we go as usual. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination seems more interested in the PROD than the particulars of the topic. As discussed at WP:AN, the use of PROD is disruptive in such cases because opposition is expected and so the deletion is controversial.

As for the subject, they are a recurring Batman supervillain just like Joker, Penguin and the rest, for which we have articles and a comprehensive list. They attract attention and get coverage in a similar way – see here or there, for example.

As there are sensible alternatives to deletion, that policy applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Batman family enemies I'm someone who prefers keeping comic articles to deleting, but there is clearly a big difference between the Joker and Penguin and this character. I don't see the two sources provided as enough to pass GNG (although the fact he was #1 on one of the lists is somewhat interesting) so I think the best solution is a redirect. Rhino131 (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Batman family enemies - The coverage on this character is pretty sparse, and largely comprised of plot summary rather than any meaningful discussion or analysis. The two listicles provided by Andrew above fall into this category, with one of them being particularly brief. While not enough for a stand alone article, these brief sources probably do warrant this being Redirected to the main article, where he is already covered. The sources listed above can probably be added to his entry there, as well, as it is currently unsourced. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Listicles, especially from websites that put them out literally 24/7 and often average two per hour, are not reliable sources. Circular logic of making yourself the expected opposition does not make a PROD disruptive. This fails to establish notability to satisfy WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Batman family enemies - minor character, not deserving their own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Batman family enemies - Until someone can substantiate notability. Darkknight2149 20:23, 26 November 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 Femforce#Other characters. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garganta[edit]

Garganta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale, so here we go as usual. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notice how the PROD and nomination are exactly the same as for Zeiss with no details, evidence or particulars of the topic that we are supposed to be discussing. This character is interesting as an example of the giant woman type and so has been noticed in that context – see The Modern Amazons. The character is part of the Femforce cast of characters and so naturally attracts notice in that context too – see The Superhero Book –The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Comic-Book Icons . Per policy WP:ATD, the worst case would be merger into some more general page such as that and so deletion is not appropriate. "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - It's amazing to see someone so blatantly hypocritically try to downplay the nomination due to lack of care when his work on dePRODing articles is way more abysmal. The Superhero Book literally mentions the character twice with zero context, so that shows he didn't even look at the source before posting it. That aside, this fails to establish notability to satisfy WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Femforce as an WP:ATD. Does not appear independently notable in the slightest, nor does the trolling by Andrew D. establish notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Femforce#Other characters, not enough in-depth coverage to warrant own article. Mentioned in target.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:30, 29 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dundee Channel[edit]

Dundee Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was a small local internet channel that wasn't notable. The references don't lead to anything and a google search likewise. Desertarun (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Desertarun (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge could be a sub-section in an article about media in Dundee, not notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There does not seem to be the level of coverage and notability that would justify an article specifically on the Dundee Channel. Dunarc (talk) 23:49, 28 November 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 Mechanical engineering. Missvain (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering[edit]

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't think this is a thing. Just because UCLA (the only source cited in the article) has a Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, doesn't make MAE a branch of engineering; just a combination of two existing ones. Fails WP:V and WP:N, and probably other things, too. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for the record, a whole lot more than UCLA calls their departments the "department of" or "school of" "Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering", the name is actually ubiquitous in higher education. That aside, there is also the International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering which is hosted by IEEE each year, with its 12th annual conference scheduled for June 2021. That conference has published, in book form, all previous eleven conferences, which is a very large amount of material. There may not be significant coverage in there, but it would be a project to really figure it out unless you are very knowledgeable in the field. From what I understand, the fields are somewhat intertwined. Whatever coverage of the topic exists, that is what the article should be about. There is nothing wrong with having the article just to state all I said above, so long as there is significant coverage in reliable sources. I am a physicist and not an engineer, so I will be reserving my !vote; I just wanted to point all this out. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everything in this non-categorised, non-tagged stub is already covered in mechanical engineering and aerospace engineering. This does not need to exist. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think there is strong evidence that many people think of this as a single combined discipline, despite the separate existence and notability of mechanical engineering and aerospace engineering as established disciplines on their own: (1) the many academic departments with this name, (2) major academic conferences with this name, including the IEEE International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering noted above but also the International Conference on Progress in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and the Asia Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, (3) its listing as a discipline in the Times Higher Education rankings [15], (4) the identification of people as being mechanical and aerospace engineers in mainstream (tabloid) media such as The Sun, (5) the fact that Google tells me there are roughly 500,000 hits for the exact phrase "field of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering", (6) the existence of textbooks aimed at this field such as Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (Roman Fritz, Willford Press, 2016), (7) the existence of journals aimed at the field such as Mechanical and aerospace engineering (CRC Press, 2012–). The title should be lowercased but that's not a problem for AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aerospace engineering already includes a good deal of mech e, not sure what is being talked about here besides a stock phrasing that happens to be used often. The article does not (nor do the sources cited here seem to) make any claim for how this field is separate from a combination of aerospace engineering and mechanical engineering, which both have articles. jp×g 12:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subdivisions are individually notable, but people do think of them together and conjoin them for administrative and publishing purposes. I think the conjunction rises to the level of significance that it would be helpful if we explained it, and having a brief dedicated article makes more sense than, say, mirror-image text in the articles on both subfields. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Mechanical engineering. As this stands, it is no more than a dictionary definition. Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering is a longstanding redirect to Mechanical engineering, the lead of which explains that "It also overlaps with aerospace engineering, metallurgical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, manufacturing engineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, and other engineering disciplines to varying amounts." – wbm1058 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to a redirect -- clearly insufficient sourced info on the nature of the hybrid field, apparently offered at one or more universities, to justify a separate article today. If this changes, then an article could be considered at a future time. For now, best to chg to a REDIRECT, as is the sames as is done for Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect more like a dictionary entry at the moment - their are lots of subjects you could join adds nothing as an encyclopedic enry. Possibly it could be a valid subject in the future but not seeing it at the moment and a redirect would serve readers better. KylieTastic (talk) 15:11, 3 December 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kara and Nate[edit]

Kara and Nate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject fails notability guidelines. Its only claim to notability is a single award won which has no significant media coverage. Of 8 sources cited 4 are to YouTube, 2 to private website of the subject, 1 to the website which bestowed the award while 1 is to source whose credibility I can't determine. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete as non-notable. The award isn't major enough to establish any sort of notability. The only potentially substantive reference (Insider) is sort of significant and the source is reasonably high quality (albeit focusing on 'lifestyle' fluff), but I wouldn't quite call it RS, and alone it's not enough. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete High-school sweethearts with a travel blog. Not quite notable. One rather small award. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about the couple aside from an Insider article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable and perhaps WP:TOOSOON Blacklisteffort (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:37, 30 November 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. People agree to a varying extent that the article has problems, but disagree about whether this requires deleting (or draftifying) it, or whether they can be fixed through editing (including moving, merging, renaming). A renomination (a shorter one, please!) is possible if after some time no improvement has occurred. Sandstein 10:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superstitions in Muslim societies[edit]

Superstitions in Muslim societies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

To understand community consensus.

• Initiating Article for Deletion process to understand larger community view.

• • Does topic 'Superstitions in Muslim societies' has enough encyclopedic notability to be an independent Wikipedia article? ** Should it be kept or deleted ?
  • If keep then, Whether it is okay to keep in main space or it should go to draft name space until further improvements
  • Or Whether redirected to any of alternate title options:

A) Superstition in the Muslim world

B) Superstition in the Islamic world

C) Islamic views of superstition

D) Folk beliefs in Muslim societies

E) Irrational practices in Muslim societies

F) Pseudoscience and superstition in Muslim societies

G) Some other title (then please do suggest)

H) Continue with present title Superstitions in Muslim societies

I) Merge in main article Superstition

J) Merge in Islamic attitudes towards science

K) Split it in various different titles.

• • • End of the AfD reason statement. Personal opinion/ comment follows separately below***

Bookku (talk) 03:59, 24 November 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 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment of personal view : The real problem, regrettably is, definition section in the article 'Superstition' itself is not fully developed to incorporate various definitions and comparisons to parallel other terms like super natural, Magic, folk beliefs etc.

• Since some of the terms overlap here and there, in an off hand judgement people can be deceived Superstition and cultural side of folk beliefs is one and the same and that beliefs in super naturals, miracles and magic are not superstitions.
• Whether you will prefer to call "Superstitions in Christian/Hindu/Jew societies" to rather be called 'Folk beliefs in Christian/Hindu/Jew societies.
• Wikipedian has general reluctance towards some kind of criticism of religion and some other counts. Many prefer suppress or subvert titles for some or other reasons, some examples are like Criticism of Hinduism was getting diverted to Anti-Hindu sentiment it seems yesterday only it has been restored back. Similarly title Criticism of Pakistan still gets diverted to Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Whether Criticism of some thing and Anti- some thing sentiments are same things?
• Same intellectual gymnastic is being attempted against title Superstitions in Muslim societies calling it to be something else to find civil ways to stifle inclusion of inconvenient opinions as much as possible. Double standard of some are such that on talk page of Superstition people take position that Superstitions are not folk beliefs but those are folk beliefs in case of some religious communities, On superstition of other religion they vote it is superstition but for other religion it is not superstition. In one reliable source some thing is refereed as superstition then only it will count superstition but other reliable source uses more politically or religiously correct word magic but not superstition then it is not superstition.
• And when other Wikipedian community members look other way considering some of the articles are not our baby then things get tough and it risks wastage of time of people who would otherwise contributing positively hence it is very important that articles go through AfD process to know what community wishes to support and what it does not. So contributing editors do not end up wasting their time. Over to Wikipedia community.
• Thanks in advance for participating in discussions irrespective of your views or differences, many greetings and warm regards Bookku (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bookku (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bookku (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• mergewith Islamic mythology and Islamic view of miracles depending on content.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to M.M. Knight, when one does not speak for real Islam (i.e.'an abstracted ideal' that floats above, Muslim, human cultures but speaks for 'lived traditions') it is preferable to use the term Muslim instead of the term Islam or Islamic.^[1]

M.M. Knight further says, terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated.^[2] (Pl. do read again)

Bookku (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources demonstrate that the topic is notable. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Fussing about the exact title should be done by Move requests per WP:TITLECHANGES. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Slatersteven to merge this with Islamic mythology, Islamic view of miracles, Karamat and Shirk (Islam). This article is a WP:COATRACK for "Irrational practices in Muslim societies" and therefore somewhat of an WP:ATTACK page. Specific issues include:
  • The article doesn't give a clear delineation between superstition and religion. Therefore anything in Islam (potentially all of Islam) can be considered superstitious, as all Muslims believe in a supernatural omnipotent deity (God in Islam). Bookku tried to add circumcision and halal meat to the article as examples of Muslim superstition.
  • The article also includes things like Bangladeshi women not eating certain fish or duckmeat (Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#Bangladesh). That's more nutritional pseudoscience, with no connection to Islam. And mothers believing food should not be taken during the call to prayer is more akin to Grace (prayer) that many Christians practice.
  • The biggest issue is that reliable sources never deal with the broad topic of "Superstitions in Muslim societies". There are good sources on Superstition in Iran, Superstition in India, but never a source that attempts to find superstitions of all 1.6 billion Muslims. The folk practices of Muslims in Senegal differ greatly from those of Muslims in the Philippines. It would be similarly hard to lump the folk practices of all Christians together into Superstition in Christian societies.VR _talk 12:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here I see things differently

1) While 'superstition' is a criticism coming from side of rationality and sciences, plus in this case from non muslims and ex Muslims, evaluating their opinions from religious point of views is gross mistake. Saudi's attack yemen and Houthi so you won't have side of Saudis or you won't have side of Houthis on encyclopedia ? That is an exclusivist position a mere intellectual gymnastic.

2) Here is a lecture of one Prof. Najaf Haider on a Muslim students platform saying branding and rejecting other views by just calling them imperial or orientalist is not correct. (I can quote him detail but YouTube lecture is always better) The youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5OtQ09Cls4 And there are many critics of Edward Said's Orientalism they too have equal right of being worthy of encyclopedic value for their opinions. If some one believes in evolution he has right to criticize and being encyclopedic note taken of, Same is true for any clergy of any religion excluding them because they are not Muslims, or Ex Muslim has not remained Muslim anymore is most unfair. If Muslim societies did not go through enough introspection is not their mistake. An anti superstition article is supposed to be primarily written from opponents point of views , and not supporters point of views.

3) I am pressured from talk page to avoid https://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-4-other-beliefs-and-practices/ on pretext that it does not include word superstition. As if Exorcism is superstition issue when written with word superstition but not if word supertition is not included. Same is true for words supernatural and magic if some one writes with word superstition then those are superstition other wise not is a logically fallacious position. If some one wants find name for this logical fallacy then here is list of logical fallacies

4) Following Bibliography talks global level superstition issues, One find excuses not to include resources that does not mean resources does not exist.

• Abdelazeez, Abu (2020-05-20). Islam Vs. Superstition. Independently Published. ISBN 978-1-0827-9889-4.
• Rothenberg, Celia E. (2011-09-22). "Islam on the Internet: the Jinn and the objectification of Islam". Journal of Religion and Popular Culture. 23 (3): 358–371. doi:10.3138/jrpc.23.3.358.
• Ultimately some people believe that topic can be suppressed through subversion by spliting and diverting but those many more pages will be available to include content so it is self defeating strategy they will obviously experience if they succeed in suppressing title. Here at least I write all sides many more pages many other people wont do that.
• Any ways it's for community to decide, I am crossing my fingers let me have my own share of superstition.
• Bookku (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Islam Vs. Superstition" you cited seems WP:SELFPUB. The other source is reliable but it seems to have more to do with Jinn and Islamic mythology than superstition.VR _talk 15:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is unclear to me why Bookku gave notices of this discussion at Talk:Atheism[16], Talk:List of former Muslims[17].VR _talk 12:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO Sciences, atheists and ex Muslims are due stake holders in the issue because topic is non believer view. And in any case those talk pages get meager page views that one should complain about. Superstition is not a topic supposed to be written from religious point of view still we wrongly we add it to religion related project post notices there and complain when real stake holders are informed. Project:Islam and other project religions are much coordinated for conservative views, where as modernist are not and I can prove that with example if some one wants Still if you want you send message to talk:Islam and other religion related article talk pages I don't have any issue, rather I will welcome that.
• Bookku (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above that superstition is a criticism coming from side of rationality and sciences, plus in this case from non muslims and ex Muslims coupled with posting this at Talk:List of former Muslims seems like you're using this article as a WP:COATRACK for criticism of Islam/Muslims.VR _talk 15:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very very amusing findings and logic :)) Where were you when I campaigned for updating Islamic advice literature and Islamic literature on various Islam related article talk pages? Those articles are missing people of great analogies and to call in objection of coat track and what not. In the article and here too I have quoted Books of Islamic point of view too, That you don't want to see. On Wikipedia policy pages I criticized equalizing criticism and anti some thing feelings with neutrality.Each of contributors to the article I invited including you, how else did you get the intimation of AfD?

You have been already filtering so much so whatever is going to remain is correct on your point of view, then why are you so afraid of deletion discussion from any atheist or ex Muslim ? Funnily enough there are hardly any views (Literally average views are Zero (pl. read again) to those talk pages still you are bent upon making issue out of? Why it is supposed to matter any one? I already said they are the real stake holders and unfortunately they are hardly represented on Wikipedia. How many of them came on any Wikipedia talk pages for. I still said you post invite to 100 Islam related article talk pages against my one posting, I have no issues. Through and through I have avoided making it personal and you want to have a chance on that count what for? Let us discuss on merit and it is rational and scientific views have the merit (Pl do read again).

Thanks any ways Bookku (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify The sources are strong and plentiful, and comfortable enough to establish notability. There is also plenty of material there (more than enough for a final year honours degree course, never mind a Wikipedia article!), possibly too much even. My main issue with this is that it's on one hand too sprawling, on the other hand seems incomplete (eg. there's a section on South Asia, but no comparable sections on any other regions). Major editing is needed, possibly by multiple editors, to bring it up to scratch, and I feel this would be best done in the draft space. (PS: This must be the longest and most convoluted AfD nom ever!) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment (not related to above comments): Just for example, lead had a very pragmatic factual and reasonably neutral intro statement. Muslim individuals and communities have at various times practiced superstitious rituals, practices, and beliefs. (Bring any academic Islamic scholar and won't disagree) This statement avoided whole sale stigmatization of the community. They were afraid of reasonable statement based on missionary but reliable extract. Since they insisted I included a statement from a Muslim University professor which targets whole community. They were insisting for academic ref I gave academic ref but now that is inconvenient so they place a tag is it unreliable source! And this kind of convenient soft censorship (People are so blind in opposing they don't even realize some one has written really some balanced statement) and rest of Wikipedia community indifferent wastes time and energy of well meaning contributors, then I feel it's better article gets deleted, so we can divert our energies else where. Bookku (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominating your own creation for deletion, and then bludgeoning all non-keep comments? I find this a waste of other people's time and it is a rather pointy abuse of the Articles for Deletion process, just to draw more attention. But since you insist on following this path again: speedy delete under criterion WP:G7. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just bemused with expertise in victim blaming and have even list of rules which even objects to right to reply. Personalizing the conflict to divert attention from content dispute, Kudos! I do not have Phd in Wikipedia rules, but as a layman editor I understand rules being misused to frustrate positive growth of an encyclopedic article to a level article's substantial contributor gets tired and themselves brings for deletion. And that is success of you people I do appreciate. Bookku (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve and possibly rename (Islam and superstition?) but keep; superstition is a notable area of study and cultural practice and is quite distinct from either mythology or other fields of discourse and endeavour. Jinns might be mythological, but practices of people to avoid harm jinns might cause a person is superstition. There is also scope for discussion of the attitude of orthodox Islam to the folk practices of Islam's adherents which are often grounded in a specifically Islamicate notion or doctrine but which incorporates practices considered shirk by the erudite. In Uzbekistan for instance is a shrine of a well which produces water which, to the superstitious, contains a healing spiritual residue imparted to the spring by the righteousness of the prophet Jonah (I think it was). There are those who say that to visit the Great Mosque of Kairouan seven times is equal to the power of the Hajj once. Witchcraft has particular aspects in Islam, and Islam has particular attitudes towards witchcraft. Black cats, owls, snakes, toads, scorpions, etc. all have less-than rational associations in the Islamic world distinct from the same creatures' superstitious powers in other parts of the world. The Koran is used for bibliomancy. Then there are millenarian and apocalyptic superstitions, the long and distinguished history of Islamic astrology, and the amulets and talismans. Tariq Ramadan speaks here about Islam and superstition for 40 minutes, which is about how long a Wikipedia article should take to read ... GPinkerton (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton there seem to be two separate topics you mentioned: (1) Islamic view of superstition and (2) "Non-Muslim view that some/all aspects of Islam constitute superstition". For #2, consider Jerry Coyne who regards "all religious belief" as superstition. #2 probably belongs at Criticism of Islam. #1 would be better covered at shirk as some of the sources currently used in the article are actually talking about shirk (see this edit that I just made) and even the Tariq Ramadan link you shared talks about superstition in connection to shirk. VR _talk 20:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Here I want to point out few nuances

1) All shirks are not necessarily superstitions, rather considering them shirk itself could be superstition, for and example for some/few Muslims Game of Chess can be Shirk, but for category #2 considering it shirk itself is rooted in superstition.

Here I repeat M.M. Knight, who says, terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated. and term Muslim is better for lived experiences^[1] Few times few Muslim individuals and communities might not have allowed Chess, but other times many Muslim individuals and groups play chess. So subject of Superstition is mainly about lived experiences of Muslims. So per Knight I prefer to retain word 'Muslim' while talking about superstitions rather than Islam.

Similar to Knight says, Article Shirk constitutes primacy of Islamic normativity hence does not give proper justice to concept of Superstition.

2) While Non Muslims ought to have right to Criticize superstitions in Islam and being taken note of in encyclopedic article, but it is not necessarily only non Muslims criticize superstitions in Islam, Many cultural Muslims and modernists criticize various superstitions among Muslims in different ways remaining religiously or politically correct to avoid blasphemy laws and violent retaliations.

3) Part of those Shirks which are superstitions get covered in Superstitions in Muslim societies, Forcing merger of Superstitions in Muslim societies in Criticism of Islam forces normativity again and will cover only incomplete picture of superstitions in Muslim Societies because there will be tendency to lesser coverage of shirks as superstitions.

4) And shirks as superstitions taken together with other superstitions if forced in to article on Criticism of Islam, Article of Criticism of Islam will get too long and one will need to split again withing if not few hours within few days certainly.

5) Again Wikipedia can and does have WP:Summary articles, various superstitions in Muslim societies are not tangent but directly related to the topic, personally I do not find it logical to consider them unrelated or coat track, Causing unnatural split and merger of the article Superstitions in Muslim societies Bookku (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:TNT (short version): extended version below:

1. Notability of the topic. Not entirely clear cut. It looks like a decent article topic but a quick search shows scholarly works about ‘Superstition in Islam’, which is a much more restricted topic, or ‘Superstition in Country/Region. Culture X’. This is the first clue as to why this article is in difficulties. The topic is very broad indeed and writing a decent article on it would require bringing in a gigantic amount of sourcing covering overlapping but non-congruent sources, which always creates the danger of WP:SYNTH.

2. Approach to topic: Assuming the notability of the topic, readers would expect us to provide some high-level discussion of it based mainly on widely-recognised and authoritative sources. I don’t think the current article does this at all. What are the major schools of thought about Superstitions in Islamic societies? What do they agree and disagree on? Reading this article, I’ve no idea. Instead, we go straight into a deep dive what specific individual writers have to say on amulets, cosmology, and the challenges of Islamic revivalist projects. Seriously, I ask anyone to read the lede two or three times, out loud, and tell me what it is about.

3. If you did a google book search for ‘superstitions in Muslim societies’ and just cut and pasted dozens of links to different texts, this is what you would end up with. A reader working through this gets a glimpse of various things various people have said, but if they want that they can just google it themselves. There is really no coherent treatment of the topic, and no effort to understand and summarise different views for the benefit of the reader. Booku seems to think that other editors are on a mission to apply ‘intellectual gynmastics’ to their articles, or to ‘stifle inconvenient opinions’, or that people care passionately about whether the title refers to ‘superstition’, ‘belief’ or something else. I don’t know, maybe others do worry about these things. What concerns me is that this just isn’t an encyclopedia article and I can’t see how it will improve our readers’ understanding of the topic. It’s bad writing.

4. There is a case for saying that if the topic is probably notable and the article could be rescued, we should leave it to develop. Yes, with about a year of concentrated work. I’ve rescued some pretty hairy articles in the past, that have taken weeks, and I certainly wouldn’t attempt this. Without a sound knowledge of this area of anthropology it would take months just to read through what various people have said on related topics to form the basis of an article, let alone write it. If anyone is keen to volunteer for this work that would be fantastic, but I think we have to recognise that ‘someone will come along later and fix it’ isn’t realistically going to help with this one. If we don’t take it out of mainspace now, it will sit for years unimproved or become a target for POV-pushing.

5. If Booku is willing to

do a great deal of work on this then I don’t object to draftifying or userfying it, but if they aren’t planning to take that on and nobody else is volunteering here, I think it should go. We would be better served by a completely fresh start at some later time, with a better initial handling of the material. One of the signs of a well-written article is that it is usually possible for other editors to continue building it. If we look at it and think ‘where on earth would you start?’ it ought to go. Mccapra (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is better to move the relevant content to relevant articles than having an independent article on this subject. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge, as the topic is still discussed at length through different concepts in my view. A merge to Islamic mythology as suggested above would be fine too if the consensus goes against keeping it as a standalone article. Mar4d (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources and citations in the article support its notability. It could use improvements, but so do many articles. Dimadick (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: so how would you define "superstition"? Some sources (particular atheist) say "all religious belief" is superstition, while authors who are Muslim tend to consider superstition a form of "shirk" (see this edit), and other sources have their own definition. Many sources currently in the article don't even use the word "superstition", let alone define it.

The article currently cites this journal article, which doesn't define superstition but says Regarding superstition about ... fruits like pineapple might cause miscarriage. That seems more like pseudoscience and folklore than superstition. VR _talk 18:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article which defines superstition:"a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation". Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using that definition, which Islamic beliefs would you say are "false" or "resulting from ignorance"? This is a POV question that should be covered neutrally at Criticism of Islam. We can't use wikipedia's voice to describe some or all of Islam as "irrational", per Dayirmiter below.VR _talk 18:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VR's and Dayirmiter's positions are self contradictory and explained below in detail. But in brief below VR says, "Superstition in Judaism seems to be about the "Jewish view on superstition" so believers of this or that religion can hold other's superstitions as superstitions and use the word Superstition in Wikipedia title but non believers can not !?

• Delete The term "superstition" is a pejorative used to dismiss the belief of another and thus inherently carries a point of view. Though it might appear in Wikipedia in a form such as "source X considered belief Y superstitious", it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice, e.g. in an article title. Whatever is of value in the article under discussion should be integrated into other articles, if possible. Dayirmiter (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very interesting but fallacious and self contrasting intellectual gymnastics. The funny argument implies as if term 'Superstition' has been invented by Wikipedians but that but term seems to be in use at least since 13th century in European languages.

While almost every other belief system dismisses other belief system as 'superstitious' irrespective of alternate terminologies of respective language like Haram, Shirk and سِحْر sihr/sahar With this funny argument, Wikipedia should not have any articles for any belief system. Neither Wikipedia should have article for Mythologies and Magic because words myth and magic too reject many other beliefs at least to an extent and used as pejorative too. Sunni's reject Shia and Sufi beliefs as Shirk so Wikipedia should not have article on Sunnis ! How does such proposition sound? Nor Wikipedia should have any 'Criticism' articles because any and every criticism can be termed and perceived as pejorative by some one or other.If any such rule is implemented sincerely most problem will be to Muslim and Islam related many regular articles because no one other criticizes various forms of Superstitions as much as Muslim world does.

Last but not least some one in one of earlier comments tried to equalize terms Shirk in Islam and Superstition. First no one comes to delete article Shirk for being pejorative, secondly Shirk represents dogma where as Superstition represents rational inquiry I don't understand how both can be equalized?

For the same people articles like Superstition in Judaism will be Okay even they won't have objection to central article Superstition as long as it discusses all other beliefs than their own.

Bookku (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku the Superstition in Judaism seems to be about the "Jewish view on superstition". One of the sources is published by Aish Hatorah and another source is authored by the Chief Rabbi of Vienna. Islamic views on superstition are similarly important and they should be covered at Shirk (Islam). Non-Muslim views that all of Islam is superstition are also important and should be covered at Criticism of Islam.VR _talk 19:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, VR has self contradicted / self goal himself on the this same discussion page. I do see following multiple drawbacks:

1) VR says, "Superstition in Judaism seems to be about the "Jewish view on superstition" so believers of this or that religion can hold other's superstitions as superstitions and use the word Superstition in Wikipedia title but non believers can not bring word 'Superstition' in title Superstitions in Muslim societies  !? (Read again)

2) If all (each and every) shirk in Islam are 'Superstitions' as VR says then why not translate that title "Islamic view on superstition"? for better understanding of larger audience? But theologically that would be borderline case.

The nuance is, basically concept of Shirk is dogma, where in God is not supposed to have any real or perceived competition.And not a strict rational scientific inquiry. I have given example of game of Chess earlier so do not repeat more examples here.

While basic concept same, many Islamic schools themselves do not agree on details about what is shirk and what is not shirk, nor Wikipedia article Shirk covers all examples of Shirk in detail beyond basic theological positions.

3) And why every other Wikipedia reader should be forced to read part of Muslim Superstitions through Islamic lens? and part of Muslim Superstitions through non−Islamic lens ?

4) Not only position that, word 'superstition' can be used within article if used by believers but not by non believers is strange, but it can be used globally can be used in articles but can not be used in title when word 'Superstition' comes along with word Muslim or Islam too is surprising and difficult to be explained logically.

5) Position that 'Wikipedia title are Wikipedia's voice' too is fallacious. One can all the way say some criticism is in the article is Wikipedia's voice and so don't include criticism. Or don't include word Criticism in in article title, One can always stretch to don't use 'rights' word in Human and Women rights article, Don't use word 'Modernism' in Wikipedia articles because it is at variance at traditional position and Wikipedia should not be used for that purpose and so on.

6) Wikipedia article Criticism of Islam can include subsection of Superstitions as sub topic but

A) In Criticism of Islam All of the criticism is not superstition related, Superstitions among Muslims itself is a extensive sub topic which deserves to have independent article.

B) As I have earlier pointed out with scholarly reference of Knight that word 'Islam' enforces a theological Islamic normative position, and lived experiences and behaviors among Muslim individuals and communities can be at variance with the Islamic dogma. For example some superstition is observed in a particular community at particular point of time, supporter of some or other school of Islamic thought can always come and claim this superstition has nothing to do with Islam so don't cover in the article. So any title other than Superstitions in Muslim societies will fail to cover topic in to it's potential best level, this would be injustice to editors and readers of Wikipedia who want to cover and read the topic to it's best potential.( Pl. do read again)

Bookku (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Supersticion in individual, major religions is a notable subfield of study. The article already cite a number of academic publications. More: [18]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source you gave says "Islam, Eastern Christianity, and Superstition according to Some Early Modern English Observers". The author is not asserting that Islam is superstitious, rather documenting allegations of superstition against Islam. The article further says That the orient in general and Islam in particular were a rich source of both heresy and superstition was not a new notion in the early modern period. Those who accuse Islam of "heresy and superstition" are obviously critics, and so this belongs at Criticism of Islam.VR _talk 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supersticion of religion x is a valid and stand-alone notably subset of criticism of said religion. (And I am not sure if a relevant Vann diagram would make it a full subset, orif it also overlaps with topics outside criticism.) Also, I am surprised we don't have Superstitions in Christianity/Superstitions in Christian societies yet... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: To emphasize the point I expressed above, I would ask if any participant in this discussion can point to an example of a person who has asserted that his or her own seriously held belief or religious practice is "superstitious" or "a superstition". Since the answer is almost certainly 'no', I repeat: if the quality "superstitious" is to be attributed, it needs to be presented as the opinion of the attributor, not as some kind of "settled fact" - as is implied when the word is used in the title of an article. Dayirmiter (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I find this argument very amusing  :)) and 'A very far stretched argument'. See some parallel examples: "Theories in Science are always revised, hence many claim, that many claims in Sciences are not settled facts, so you don't use word 'Science' in Wikipedia article titles" :); "Definitions of What is 'Islam' or What is 'Christianity' or What is 'Hinduism' are subject to various different different schools of thought, so there are no single settled definitions, for example Wahabis, Shia, Sufis, modernist, Islamic feminism views on Islam are entirely different So what is 'Islam' is not a settled fact, So you don't use words 'Islam', 'Christianity', 'Hinduism' in the Wikipedia article titles." :))

• Pointing out dirty water (i.e. questioning superstitions) is primarily business of Skepticism i.e. of skeptics, So this article needs to be viewed from point of skeptics first.
• (Non Violent, Human rights respecting) 'Right of conscience'(Which I do respect as Human right) does not make any beliefs automatically rational or scientific. (Pl. read again at least couple of times)
• Rational or scientific inquiries are most times, than not, very very objective. Any rational or scientific inquiry does not become subjective, just because a defender defends his position against skepticism with right of conscience.(Pl. read again at least couple of times)
• Rather than giving primacy to skeptics, giving primacy to scholar of same school which is under criticism is erroneous, logically fallacious and subversive since who is being criticized is having conflict of interest in defending their own school of thoughts.
• No doubt defender has stake in pointing out all is not dirty water but their baby too is standing there by pointing out the baby. And so we do have already given space in separate section Superstitions in Muslim societies#Islamic responses
• Primary business of religion is parenting of humanity for good values is their baby. And so religions do have separate articles to display their own babies. In those articles skeptics and criticism will have secondary place.
• Because their are skeptics of skeptics, right of skepticism does not vanish. Since there are no settled positions among skeptics, one should not have Wikipedia article titles with skeptical or critical words is very fallacious one. (Pl. read again at least couple of times)

Bookku (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSECTION --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ User:HyperGaruda,

• Even with beginning of article formatting to collection of sources as first and main contributor intended article to be well proportioned and well balanced. So as earlier said it contains responses section to take note of various other perspectives. Of course a referenced article progresses as the referenced writing progress.
• Yes it's true that I do have soft corner to strong rationalism, Sciences and modernism; Still the fact is, with kind of neutrality I approached the article, not being used to neutrality an anon got confused and commented on article talk page that article retains traditionalist biases and is quasi-modernist also.
• While importing section magic into the article I did not delete traditional Islamic position of deciding magic in licit and licit. Actually main points as per main theme of the article are still to be covered in that section.
• In bibliography section I included in traditional point making Abdelazeez, Abu (2020-05-20). Islam Vs. Superstition. And wish we expand the article more with his points of views too. I included one traditionalist source in article Shirk too, probably you or some one deleted for being self published.
• I brought article early in main space with a hope that all can contribute to the article and enrich it with multiple perspectives.
• WP:CSECTION says at one place, "..don't split off articles with the purpose of purging a Wikipedia article of its legitimate criticism." Retaining the same spirit I change this sentence a little bit to request all others "..don't intend to purge article's title and content with the purpose of purging a Wikipedia article of its legitimate criticism." (Emphasis added)
• And rather than positively expanding article with diverse point of views, unfortunately some are focused in a singular mission of how to purge any likely hood of criticism, and that is concern.
• As you pointed out Spirit/essence of Wikipedia:Criticism#Philosophy, religion, or politics seems to allow:
  • "...it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets..." Here I emphasize again that, Spirit/essence of this policy allows for present article title Superstitions in Muslim societies and I request all others to join in expansion of this article with all possible perspectives to let it realize best potential of a well balanced and proportionate article, as Wikipedia's encyclopedic project expects.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:17, 2 December 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. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poulomi Saha[edit]

Poulomi Saha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Spyder212 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete Could use better sources for the article, twitter and two newspapers isn't pushing it over the top. Not much from what I can see to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk)
• Delete: per nom. Every face that appears on television does not automatically warrant a wiki page. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This TV anchor does not have any remarkable achievement so far that merits a Wikipedia article. No detailed coverage of the person found. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 30 November 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 Badfinger#Compilations/live albums. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless... The Musical Legacy[edit]

Timeless... The Musical Legacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poorly sourced article which currently does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, deprodded without explanation or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Badfinger#Compilations/live albums. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Badfinger article, a simple compilation album alone isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk)
• Redirect to Badfinger#Compilations/live albums. As someone familiar with the band, I can say that this compilation is respected among the fan community, and it did get an AllMusic review which usually helps with notability around here. However, that is just one review and the compilation has little to no reliable music media coverage elsewhere, and the current article is dependent on sources that are actually about the band or individual songs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:55, 24 November 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 Skeeter Davis discography. Missvain (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Essential Skeeter Davis[edit]

The Essential Skeeter Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poorly sourced article which currently does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, deprodded without explanation or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Skeeter Davis discography: Barely found anything about the compilation album online aside from an AllMusic review and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about it. There may be other local newspaper sites which talk about the album like the latter, but they're hard to find. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Skeeter Davis discography. Astig's suggestion makes sense. I own this disc and it's a terrific compilation, but greatest hits compilations tend not to receive the same coverage, and thus tend not to have the same level of notability, as original releases. My searches turned up the St. Louis Post-Disptach piece, but nothing else. Cbl62 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 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 Suzi Quatro discography#Compilation albums. Missvain (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legend: The Best of Suzi Quatro[edit]

Legend: The Best of Suzi Quatro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Poorly sourced article which currently does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it's pretty poor. I've already redirected a few other articles created by this editor – I added the only good review of this album I could find, but as with most compilation albums, it's hard to add any prose about songs which are years or (in this case) decades old. There might well be reviews of the record in print versions of Q and Mojo magazines, but I'm not going to make a case for keeping the article on the basis that there may possibly be other sources, without any evidence. I suspect a redirect to Suzi Quatro discography#Compilation albums might be the best solution for now. Richard3120 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recording Industry Association of Malaysia[edit]

Recording Industry Association of Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails Notablity, seems advertising. Sturdyankit (chat) 03:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the other RIA pages as it's not notable enough to stand for it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 16:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I disagree with your proposal to delete this article. Furthermore, sources are provided to prove notability, but this article need to rewrite and cleanup. Hope you can reconsider this matter.–Fandi89 (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well established and significant organisation. Referenced. Article needs updating.Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep RIM is the official IFPI representative for Malaysia. It published official charts and awards certifications. The article is also sourced and notability is demonstrated. --Muhandes (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources and article could use cleaning, but it's notable and distinct from other RIA organizations --Nooneofnote (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M. Nasir[edit]

M. Nasir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails Notablity, seems Promotinol or advertising. Sturdyankit (chat) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I disagree with your proposal to delete this article. This subject is notable as there are sources provided. We can cleanup this by removing any contents that is promotional or advertising. Also we should added more references to prove notablity as well. Best Regards.–Fandi89 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fandi89. – robertsky (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fandi89. Anumengelamun (talk)

I cann't understand on what basis you guys are putting KEEP votes...your votes are Baseless...give some appropriate reasons if you think this Article is notable enough for English wikipedia...kindly look once the article, How can it seems notable...There is no any valid reference; the provided reference is from Facebook, originals(Black hat seo site) and 3 of 5 reference are from same source. Sturdyankit (chat) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturdyankit: which sites are black hat seo sites? care to break these down for us? From the way I am seeing the references:

1. http://praharaseni.blogspot.my/2001/11/phoenix-bangkit-back-to-roots.html seems to be a republishing of an article from a magazine published in Malaysia. We probably will have to do better and find an alt source/link for this.

2. https://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Artist/mnasirofficial/about/ this is his official page. the fact and refs fits WP:ABOUTSELF

3. http://www.bfm.my/wavelength-the-journeyman-m-nasir.html http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/entertainment/m-nasir-traditional-music-meets-western-sounds https://web.archive.org/web/20150809191455/http://www.star2.com/culture/arts/2015/04/29/m-nasir-he-sings-he-writes-now-hes-making-art/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170205181402/http://ww1.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=1998&dt=0813&pub=utusan_malaysia&sec=rencana&pg=ot_04.htm&arc=hive https://web.archive.org/web/20111119041154/http://ecentral.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F11%2F18%2Fmovies%2F9925532&sec=movies are/were domains belonging reputable media companies based in Malaysia and Singapore.

4. http://www.istiadat.gov.my/index.php/component/semakanlantikanskp/ goes Malaysia's government site listing the awards given at national level.

Pray tell, how are these references invalid? – robertsky (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has won a number of notable awards as shown in the article and also has reliable sources coverage such as The Straits Times so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dayang Nurfaizah[edit]

Dayang Nurfaizah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails Notablity, seems Promotinol. Sturdyankit (chat) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — a quick search reveals numerous articles in English about her in Malaysian publications (e.g. here, here, here, and here) along with what appear to be more in Malay. I can't speak well to their reliability and substantive independence, but the volume of articles alone from different outlets in recent years suggests she indeed is notable. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well, I agree with you; Google search give some results about her but I don't think these websites are reliable enough. These websites are look like PR or black hat SEO sites.Sturdyankit (chat) 04:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malay Mail is a 123-year-old paper that seems to have a fine reputation. I'm also seeing apparent articles about her (e.g. here) in Harian Metro, though these are in Malay, which I don't speak. So it does seem she meets notability requirements through independent, reliable sources. It is also worth noting that both Malay and Indonesian Wikipedia have articles on her as well. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As a native speaker of Malay, I think we can added more English references in addition of Malay references. This person is notable and I don't think it is seems to be promotional or advertising and I disagree with your proposal to delete this article.–Fandi89 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as national newspapers which have been identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 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.