Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 18 February	20 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#1. No editor has recommended deletion or hard redirect. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birinci Ərəbcəbirli[edit]

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

Proposing a merge into stub page about the municipality Ərəbcəbirli PenulisHantu (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. PenulisHantu (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you don’t need an AfD discussion for this you can just go ahead and merge it. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeler Place, Arizona[edit]

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

Non-notable family homestead where a non-notable person lived. This article was deprodded with the rationale "Inhabited places are presumed notable WP:GEOLAND, and this even has a reference to someone known to have been born there." The sole source for this is an obituary for Carl Wheeler which mentions that he spent part of his childhood at the Wheeler Place and that the name still appears on maps. I view this as an overly broad interpretation of WP:GEOLAND; the fact that somebody lived there and it appears on a map does not meet the spirit or, arguably, the letter of our notability guidelines. –dlthewave ☎ 23:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero results in newspapers.com and Google map shows there is nothing there but the Arizona-New Mexico border. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single house is not notable without significant coverage. This does not meet GNG. MB 01:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNIS lists it as a populated place, but GNIS makes errors. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Jefferson (Ohio) for something going the other way, where a populated place was listed as a mountain.) A good example of why GNIS should never be used as the basis for an article without something else corroborating. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this is a notable place. Unclear why someone added the paid obit of some rando former missionary...it just corroborates the homestead's lack of notability! Reywas92^Talk 04:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.WikiAviator (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Carl Wheeler PenulisHantu (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense, Carl Wheeler is a disambiguation page and the associated entry just points back to this (Wheeler Place, Arizona) MB 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

neutral / comment I was the one who deprodded the article, but I misread it. I thought it was a (very small) town, while it actually is a lone house. - Nabla (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comment Further demonstrating the unreliability of the obituary — what maps does this appear on? I checked USGS quads for the site, and it doesn't label anything at the site. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does show up on topos from the 1950s but not on newer ones, which is evidence that USGS might be doing a certain amount of quality control that's not reflected in the GNIS database. As someone who was exposed to a lot of family mythology at a young age, I can easily picture someone pulling out Grandpa's old quads and saying "See, it's still on the map!" –dlthewave ☎ 23:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Dlthewave, MB, Nyttend, Reywas92, and WikiAviator: I take it you're all gonna trout me at once for trying to turn the article into a biography? ミラ P 22:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus in favour of deletion. Also a strong suggestion that the talk page should be preserved in another way. There is also a suggestion of creating a soft redirect which haven't gained much support, and a slightly better supported suggestion for salting. With this in mind, I'll delete the page and protect it but not the talk page; a soft redirect can be discussed and asked for there if necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tristis[edit]

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

This nomination is a test case. It was prompted by a recent and open discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Specific epithets, to which contributions are welcomed. I know of similar pages to this one, but it seems simplest to discuss this one as a typical example; not least because it has been discussed before with inconclusive results, as detailed blow.

There were related AFD discussions to the present one in 2008, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miserabilis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulgaris. Those resulted in deletion. There were related discussions in 2011, at Talk:Tristis#Useful or not?, Talk:Tristis#List? and Talk:Tristis#Consensus?, which did not result in WP:CONSENSUS. Those discussions led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis, which resulted in no consensus.

This is a courtesy-ping to every editor who took part in any of those discussions. I apologise if I've missed anyone out. It is in no particular order, it is the order in which I collected the names. The size of the list suggests that there may be various opinions. @Anetode, Wloveral, Atyndall, Zetawoof, Abtract, Deor, Bkonrad, Neelix, Lenticel, Good Olfactory, Itub, LAAFan, Danski14, Sandstein, Shoessss, Tim Ross, JeremyMcCracken, Ron B. Thomson, Shyamal, Phlegm Rooster, Lankiveil, Carlossuarez46, Metropolitan90, SP-KP, Danger, Hesperian, Obsidian Soul, Invertzoo, Lavateraguy, Rkitko, Peter coxhead, Bob the Wikipedian, Abyssal, Petter Bøckman, Antarctic-adventurer, Guettarda, Snek01, JoJan, EncycloPetey, Xymmax, Whpq, Nipsonanomhmata, Unscintillating, Jnestorius, Plantdrew, and Certes: I am aware that some of those editors may no longer be active. I am also aware that some of those editors may be well-known, for good reasons or bad, unrelated to the present topic. That is neither here nor there: my desire is for a full discussion and (if possible) CONSENSUS on the basic point; to which, with the preliminaries out of the way, I now turn to set out my opinion.

A binomial name consists of two parts: the genus and the specific epithet or name. The formal rules differ in detail between botany and zoology, but for present purposes I do not think that that matters. A genus name is unique within each biological kingdom; duplicates are suppressed. Specific epithets, however, need only be unique within each genus in any kingdom. As a crude analogy, a genus name is like a surname, and a specific name like a given name.

Narky Blert (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further by nom - this is what can happen when you accidentally press Save in the middle of an extended argument, and the bot catches you. The missing part of my nomination is:

Specific epithets are never, or almost never, used on their own in scientific discourse. Once Genus species has been mentioned, it is common to abbreviate its name as G. species, but not to species. I can only think of two exceptions: casual communication between naturalists who are in no doubt as to what genus they are talking about, and some few rare cases where a specific epithet has become a WP:COMMONNAME (Plantdrew has identified some in the ongoing WP Talk:DAB discussion). It would be like describing, say, an election campaign using only the given names of everyone involved.

It follows that a DAB page which consists of only of specific epithets consists of nothing but WP:PTMs, and should be deleted. It also follows that more complex DAB pages should not contain binomial names whose only relation to the title is the specific epithet. Finding those is what things like the searchbox and {{intitle}} and {{lookfrom}} are for. The fact that specific epithets are in what looks like a learnèd language should not make any difference: they are adjectives. For example, vulgaris (deleted in 2008, but since recreated) means "common". The idea that the DAB page common should include, for example, common carp, common gull, common krait, common warthog, common wheat, and all the rest, strikes me as absurd.

In conclusion, I submit that Tristis should be deleted.

(I do not in any way argue that standalone or embedded lists of species named after a specific person or thing should be deprecated or deleted. They can have encylopaedic value; see for example List of things named after Barack Obama#Biota and Carlo Antonio Fornasini#Taxa named in honour. My argument is solely about specific epithets on DAB pages.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert, I don't really know what this is about or what if any relationship I have to this page or issue, but as long as I'm here: could you tell us why exactly you think that this page should be deleted? Sandstein 22:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: the issue is whether pages on specific names/epithets are of any real value in an encyclopedia. Genus names correspond to taxa (i.e. groups of organisms), about which there can be articles. Sometimes genus names need disambiguating (e.g. because the same genus name can be used under different nomenclature codes), but each undisambiguated genus name corresponds to a taxon, a topic worthy of an article. A specific name/epithet has no such correspondence. There's no inherent connection between the taxa with tristis as the second part of their binomial. It's as if we said that because there are organisms called "greenfinch", "green woodpecker", "green crayfish" and "green spider flower", we should have an article at "Green" that disambiguated them. To me, articles like this make no sense, and should be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: My apologies. I pressed Save in mistake for Preview, which left my argument incomplete. I mentioned you simply because you were the closing admin in one of those AFDs in 2008. Narky Blert (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said, almost twelve years ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miserabilis:

Miserabilis is merely a Latin adjective meaning 'wretched'; it has no scientific significance in itself. We don't have articles with adjectival titles, and we shouldn't have such dab pages either. I've never seen species names 'used by themselves', except perhaps in a journal article discussing multiple species of only one genus, and even then the almost invariable practice is to abbreviate, rather than omit, the genus name (as, for example, 'A. miserabilis' for Andrena miserabilis). Organisms' binomial names are, in effect, inseparable compounds.

I'm still of the opinion that this dab page, and ones like it, are in violation of WP:PARTIAL—see especially the second paragraph, dealing with generic and specific parts of names. Deor (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it makes no sense to have a Disambiguation article for adjectives like tristis that form part of a name. However, I could see this fitting comfortably under the guidelines for a stand-alone List article, i.e., "List of binomial names with tristis". Either delete or convert to a list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom. @Peter coxhead, Deor, and EncycloPetey: I had a bout of FFS, and you commented on my incomplete argument. I suspect that the missing bit may not change your opinions; but am pinging you out of courtesy in case it might. Narky Blert (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; PTM. Hesperian 00:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after a look at the page, my opinion is the same as from the first AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete my view is still the same about this type of AfD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just throwing it out here. What if we soft redirect it to its wiktionary entry instead? --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably best handled through the search function; If deleted, I would recommend salting it to avoid someone 'helpfully' redirecting it to his or her favorite species and allowing the search function to work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like I said 9 years ago: "I also don't think it's very practical to disambiguate specific names unless they are actually used widely to refer to the organism. If we did, we'd probably get thousands of articles listed under dab pages of more common specific names like major, minor, sativum, vulgaris or for colors/patterns like rubra, viridis, alba, flavus, punctatus, variegatus, etc. etc". As stated, however, we must acknowledge there are exceptions where specific names have entered common usage and should be retained for the particular species they apply to (but only for them), like arabica. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is something Wikidata could handle much better. Guettarda (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is the biological equivalent of the situation I described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2.2.1: "if you're looking for information about The Godfather Part II, you don't go to the Part II page (and, in fact, you won't find anything about The Godfather Part II there)." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and my post above – along with all similar articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The entries are all partial-title matches, so the page is not useful for disambiguation (there don't appear to be any eligible articles among those that contain "tristis" in their title), and it can't be reworked into a list, as the inclusion criterion will have no encyclopedic value. However, its talk page should be preserved somewhere (a subpage of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, or better – of this AfD), as it contains extensive discussion that's likely to have continued relevance to how we treat species epithets. – Uanfala (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Uanfala's proposal to archive the Talk Page somewhere. Those 2011 discussions are valuable. Narky Blert (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Retaining the talk page is a good idea. There is no need to move or archive it. It can be tagged with {{G8-exempt}} -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. Narky Blert (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I favor a Soft Redirect, as proposed by Lenticel, above. For good or ill, this is a term that gets used - and the number of places where it pops up is extensive, if the list is any indication. Deleting this, while justified, will not prevent someone else from coming along later and recreating it, thinking that such a term should have an entry. A soft redirect would solve that problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection against creation would work too, of course, as noted above - but this would be the more informative option, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article, but keep the talk page. Partial title match, species epithets don't stand alone and are not likely to be searched for as stand alone terms. The talk page is useful for Wikipedia history as it has a discussion that was well advertised on WikiProjects with input from several editors regarding the desirability of species epithet disambiguation pagess. Plantdrew (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Bhatt[edit]

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

Non-notable secretary-general of a BJP state branch who fails WP:GNG. Of the sources, #1 is not independent, #2 is about a meeting and just mentions him as present, and #3 is the only one about him. Before gave me nothing else good. Creator admitted to being an employee of the BJP. ミラ P 22:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 22:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 22:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL for not winning any election. secretary general is a non notable post in party. This is just another of the shocking amount of political spam related to Indian politics created by WP:COI users such as this. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Party administrator who fails GNG and NPOL; didn’t see anything suggesting otherwise. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he did not win elections. fails WP:NPOL and Wp:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. As DBigXray mentioned Indian political spam is becoming boundless. - The9Man | (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mounce[edit]

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

No independent sources. Probably a vanity page by a patient or associate. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBIO No notability claimed and all references are non-independent. Creator seems to be a single purpose account with an undeclared CoI. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional page. PenulisHantu (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This has been around since 2010? Yikes. shoy (reactions) 14:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a result of WP:COI from an WP:SPA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No independent sources, fails notability Alex-h (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sourcing, likely created to boost the subject's online presence. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Wesker[edit]

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

Apart from his parentage he doesnt seem very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No good coverage. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ENT requirements. PenulisHantu (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ádám Pozsonyi[edit]

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

PROD declined by Kvng on the grounds that there are sources in the eo.wiki and hu.wiki articles. There are but they’re blogs, YouTube videos and other self-published materials suggesting that these three articles are a piece of self-promotion. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing falls incredibly short of what is needed to demonstrate notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has been mentioned briefly in a couple of Hungarian books, including the one cited in the article's only footnote, plus this: [1]. But otherwise he is a guy who got noticed as a local character by a couple of authors. It appears that he has no reliable media coverage otherwise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as the subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiralal Chakraborty[edit]

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

Bio unsourced since 2008. Pinged WikiProject:West Bengal to seek sources but nothing forthcoming. Notability doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NPOL and doubtful notability without verifiable independent sources. PenulisHantu (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article did not pass our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sailor Mars. Should new sources emerge the article can always be restarted. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Risa Honma[edit]

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

The article has as its only source the subjects own website. This is clearly not where we can keep an article. A search for sources showed IMDb, not a reliable source, and Wikipedia mirrors but not reliable sources John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sailor Mars. I couldn’t find anything that suggests any other notability, so I created a redirect, but it was apparently overwritten when the history was restored. ミラ P 20:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 20:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 20:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 20:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 20:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She has an active profile on Oricon and I noticed she had a supporting role in the movie Parallel World Theater 1 A big part of her career took place in the mid-to-late 2000s, when Internet sources were rare, but even then, I can't tell if she had any other leading roles. Even the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't list sources. lullabying (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaber Al Ansari[edit]

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

paid for spam about a non-notable CEO. none of the sources have in depth coverage of Ansari and they're mostly puff pieces/PR/contributor pieces. Praxidicae (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not meet the requirement at WP:BIO and no other evidence of notability. Praxidicae, you're right; there is a violation of terms of use per off-wiki evidence so, let me know if you want to see them. GSS ^💬 06:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. He appears to be the CEO of a non-notable company. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely undeclared conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Sources all run of the mill coverage; just a bloke doing a job.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References severely lacking. Dorama285 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inside the Criminal Mind[edit]

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

A four-part series with no second season, with an unknown cast, for which I can trace no professional reviews. The three sources cited are of questionable significance. One, for example, is a WordPress blog. Guy (help!) 18:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ignoring the blog, the Ready Steady Cut! and Decider sites aren't enough for notability by themselves; Decider ranks below 7000 on internet engagement (not too horrible), but RSC is below 150,000. It's a show that never got any serious attention, and reading those reviews, it seems it didn't merit any. (edited to add: I did try to find additional source myself, failed) Schazjmd (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paraná Banco[edit]

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

I nominated this article for deletion because:

It's not in english
Has no third-party sources Richevans69 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Richevans69 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:A2
Procedural keep; the language issue is irrelevant, because an English-language article was overwritten with Portuguese in 2018, so I've reverted to the English article. Even if there weren't English content in the history, A2 also wouldn't apply, since it's meant for when an en:wp page is moved elsewhere (or, I suppose, a page elsewhere is wrongly moved here), and the Portuguese page here was different from the pt:wp page. The only potentially valid reason for deletion is on notability grounds, and on that I'm neutral. I say "procedural keep" because I don't want this discussion to be influenced by anything other than the notability issue. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the notability question there seems to be some results about them in Google News. Although I don't speak the language and therefore don't want to a decision on their reliability, but sources about the company do seem to exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi V. Melwani[edit]

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

Delete. This page should be deleted as the subject is not notable and seems like he himself edits and adds to the page.Tabletop123 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable and the previous edits seem to have been executed by someone close to the subject. Syriusa (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references thus doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Angus1986 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No references and not notable. Name search reveals not very pleasant complaints and stories. Tabletop123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 11 February 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
- What's this – vote early and vote often? I'm striking this "bonus" vote. You already voted when you nominated the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - NinjaRobotPirate the deletion procedure is not a vote process and yes anyone is free to comment as many times as he/she wants to, including the nominator. Tabletop123 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can comment, but you can't vote multiple times. As I said: your nomination is your vote, so please don't add further votes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was not correctly listed until today, so this should expect to run a minimum of a further 7 days barring WP:SNOW
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 19:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG PenulisHantu (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject also appear to use the name "Atman in Ravi". AllyD (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have significant coverage or achievements to become notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - The9Man | (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The links which were in this article prior to its nomination were obviously not suitable references. Looking for better, I am finding in-role mentions (for example around an endowed hospital) plus multiple PR-sourced items publicising his books, but I don't see these as sufficient to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indrani Mishra[edit]

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

fails WP:NPOL as this Congress party candidate contested once but lost the election. Nothing else for notability. Sources are primary or about election. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NPOL PenulisHantu (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not meeting the criteria for WP:NPOL and no significant references to support the claim for an article. The9Man | (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahra Razavi[edit]

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

Sources provided are mostly staff/contributor profile pages - not independent or reliable, plus one article written by the subject, so not independent. My own search turns up a few mentions in reliable sources, but only where she provides a quote as part of an article about a different topic - none of the articles are about her so there is no depth of coverage. Appears to fail WP:GNG and also WP:AUTHOR despite having a few published works to her name as there is no indication that she is regarded as an important figure, widely cited, or her works are well-known or have attracted any critical attention. Hug^syrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 16:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) The amount of WP:BEFORE carried out here could literally have been no more than 15 minutes, since the article was nominated for deletion 20 minutes after creation (how many of the items listed at WP:GDBN were carried out in those 15 minutes?). She is a senior UN official, director of a department of the ILO - there are only 9 department directors. She is a global expert in the field of gender and development as attested by her holding the directorship of the Progress of the World's Women report and publications in leading academic journals. The reference in the article from the World Bank is not a staff page but an expert recognition page, she has never worked at the World Bank. She holds a position well-above an equivalent full-professor rank at a university. Board member of international academic associations....all of which is revealed from a genuine review of the subject. A prod here would have been quite reasonable, AfD is simply inappropriate. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15 minutes is more than adequate to carry out a thorough WP:BEFORE. In fact I doubt it took me even half that time to read the four sources in the article and conduct the basic searches required. I appreciate it’s not pleasant having your work nominated for deletion but I do wish people would focus on making a clear, policy-based case for keep, rather than attacking the behaviour of delete nominators - it’s not productive. Anyway, the World Bank source is not an ‘expert recognition page’, it’s a speaker profile - in no way a reliable source and highly likely to have been provided by Razavi herself. Nothing else that you have said indicates passing the GNGs. Hug^syrup 20:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been round here long enough that I take nothing personal about anything to do with this encyclopaedia. What I am concerned about is the general overuse of AfD in lieu of basic editing processes. Unfortunately, I cannot accept that any form of adequate BEFORE can be done in 15 minutes (or less as claimed) here. I think applying commonsense rather than an abridged AfD guidebook is a far more useful mechanism - especially when subjects cross category boundaries. So, the subject is not simply an academic (although aspects of her work are academic), but having been a board member of the International Association for Feminist Economics and an editorial board member of Feminist Economics would indicate that multiple aspects of WP:ACADEMIC are met. The subject is an international civil servant, so aspects of WP:POLITICIAN are relevant, ie holding an international office, but I accept that some may not find that categorisation conclusive. However, out of the 36,000 odd international professional staff of the UN (which is not all UN staff, that number is much larger, but the highest category of all UN staff), she sits on a grade (D1/D2) that less than 7% have obtained - so sits within a highly significant category within the most significant category of UN staff. Regarding the source discussed, whether or not it is a speaker profile, it is from the World Bank - she has never worked for the World Bank, so it is independent. Furthermore, the vast majority of work published by the UN is secondary source (the IPCC is the best example of this) - it is the only acceptable way to work amongst the constituents; it's not unreasonable to treat the UN agencies as RS.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the source discussed, whether or not it is a speaker profile, it is from the World Bank - she has never worked for the World Bank, so it is independent this is a complete mischaracterisation of what independence means. She may not have worked there, but she spoke at one of their events [2] hence, naturally, why she has a speaker profile. A speaker profile is, almost by its definition, intended to promote the speaker or at least portray them in a positive light. They are often supplied by the speaker themselves, and are more akin to a press release than a substantial article about the individual. They are the furthest thing from independent, and no one can seriously believe that this is an 'independent, reliable source covering the subject in depth.' Hug^syrup 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above rationale. Additionally, I did some WP:BEFORE myself and added a few more links. I also found numerous academic books from major university presses citing Razavi ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] It definitely looks like you could have, and should have, taken a bit more time.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by IphisOfCrete (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume that because I didn't add things, I didn't find them. Being cited in a few books is not evidence of notability per se, and there is no clear agreement on how many cites are required to meet WP:ACADEMIC. The other sources you added are yet more examples of articles about other topics that simply quote Razavi. If you're going to attack me for an alleged lack of WP:BEFORE, it would be nice to at least show an understanding of what constitutes an acceptable source. Hug^syrup 09:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's break down some metrics. She has been cited in a lot more than a "few books" but I intentionally highlighted citations from major academic publications which address the very same topics that Razavi researches, ie women's rights, economic developments & gender equity, etc. The sources I added are actually quite relevant if you read Criterion 7 for WP:NACADEMIC which states that "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area". Other sources in the article discuss Razavi's work instead of her personal biography, but for notability purposes that actually seems preferable. The thrust of this should be to determine whether she can be considered an authority in her field, and whether her work has made a broad impact.

Worldcat shows that she has 5,226 library holdings, which is significant for a scholar in the humanities.^[1] By contrast, Jordan Peterson (a very well known author and professor, though I'm personally not a fan) has 4,796.^[2] I think this is a good litmus test for her notability as an academic. Further, she has an h-index of 14, while the average full professor in sociology has a 3.7 and the average full economics professor has a 7.6. Now h-index is not good as a standalone metric because it can be misleading across different fields , and can be influenced by a wide range of variables. However, I think this lines up fairly well with the rest of the information available. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep per above , for her academic works Alex-h (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above point that she meets WP:ACADEMIC through Criteria 7 (“The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.”) but for different reasons than listed above. As already said, “Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.” I personally don’t think academic book citations count as “outside academia” explicitly, so here are a list of conventional media that have quoted her (and her UN academic work) as an academic expert, in the area of women & labor/economics:

Her working in a head research position in a United Nations branch has led her to having substantial impact outside academia, and to being quoted frequently as an academic expert (inside and outside of academia). I think this, along with her past and current UN research positions, and along with her long list of published academic work and references in other academic books (shown above and through an easy google books or google scholar search) is more than enough to establish notability (even if someone doesn't think any of these individually is notable enough on its own). WP:ACADEMIC notability also overrides the idea that "none of the articles are about her so there is no depth of coverage," because this type of notability is "measured by their academic achievements." Most of the articles you can find online that mention her are about her work & research.

(Also, I want to point out that she is sometimes referred to as "Shahrashoub Razavi" professionally, since I have a found some older UN press and articles referring to her that way.) Whisperjanes (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above points and in line with fulfilling WP:ACADEMIC through Criteria 7. Edited that Ravazi was an invited contributor to a Japan's journal on welfare policies discussion; Ravazi's analysis as UNRISD officer^{[※ 1]} on care giving sectors among six Asian countries binds topics by Japanese researchers^{[※ 2]}, evoking a long term discussion.^{[※ 3]}

References

^ In the Special issue: International comparison of care, accessed 23 February 2020, pdf ISSN 1344-3062 (in Japanese).
^ Contribution by Japanese researchers around Ravazi's article, ISSN 1344-3062 (in Japanese).
^ Emiko Ochiai; Leo Aoi Hosoya. "Transformation of the intimate and the public in Asian modernity", translated from Japanese; OCLC 984803155.

--Omotecho (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. I think she passes WP:ACADEMIC.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough information already provided to support the claim of her notability. She has enough coverage and a notable person in her field. Also fullfilling the WP:ACADEMIC - The9Man | (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serangoon Public Library[edit]

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

Cannot see why this passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so a "redirect" or "merge" w/o redirect to Nex, Singapore is out of the question? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a few days old and contains very little information. Although redirects are WP:CHEAP I don't see the case for having one (no evidence anyone searches for this) nor for a merge (minimal to no mergeable content on the page, and presumably the active editor who just created this could as easily just put the information into that article - if the editors there agree it is notable for that article). -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree it is not notable. I did search for sources though, and the nom. ought to mention a WP:BEFORE in case there is some notability that is not apparent from the poor state of the article. It gets mentioned in books, but only as a location in the same way countless other libraries are mentioned. It also gets mentioned a couple of times for being built on a roof, including this source: [3]. This appears to be its most notable feature, but the mention here is not substantial and does not make it notable. If the building were iconic and listed in some offical database or list of iconic buildings, it would be likely to meet notability guidelines, but I found no evidence that it was. Thus my view is deletion is appropriate. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to have been the subject of significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge individual product lines to main company. There essentially unanimous agreement that the individual products are not notable by themselves. There's less agreement about the main article. My recommendation to people who would renominate the main article is to wait until the merges are all done, and then re-evaluate how things stand at that point. And, to whoever does the merge, leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martian Metals[edit]

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

A company with very limited notability. Yes, they won an "Origins award" twice, but considering the lack of coverage this generated for the company, one can wonder how important these awards really were.

The reviews of the company products all come from Steve Jackson Games, but considering that Martian Metals made a.o. miniature figures for Ogre (game), a game which was designed by Steve Jackson, these can hardly be considered independent sources (writing reviews about a company which also creates miniatures for your own game...)

Looking for sources produces nothing substantial. The "best" book result only confirms that it existed[4], and e.g. if one does find an article on the awards, the company again is only mentioned[5].

The 75 different Google hits[6] contain shops, personal webpages, fora, or fan sites, e.g. one of the best here is this one.

Just looking for "martian metals" gives many unrelated results, but trying to find more sources with a different search like this produced roughly the same results, and still nothing to establish actual notability. Having 14 articles for different "lines" consisting of one to 12 miniatures seems like total overkill.

Also nominated are the following products from this company:

Fram (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Myy first thought was that there might be a case for incorporating the content of all these articles into one, but I don't think even this would be be well enough sourced to establish notability. Fancruft in excelsis.TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company itself, as a notable and award-winning miniatures manufacturer. Merge the lines to it and delete the other articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the company as the available sources meet GNG. Merge product lines into the company, per BEFORE C.4 and PRESERVE. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- {ping|Necrothesp|Newimpartial}} I took quite some trouble explaining why the sources don't indicate notability, only for you two to claim without any backing that yes, this meets the GNG. While this may be so, it would help if you could explain why, and not just state it, per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Fram (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Botched the ping, so once again: @Necrothesp and Newimpartial:. Fram (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's simply your opinion. It's my opinion that they do. Notability is subjective and is not governed by hard and fast rules (that's why we have AfD discussions and don't just allow admins to go round deleting anything that doesn't meet strictly defined notability criteria). In my honest opinion, there's far too much desire to delete on Wikipedia at the moment. I entirely agree that having an article for each product line is unnecessary overkill, but the company itself is, in my view, undoubtedly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, no. WP:N is a guideline, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". I have tried to follow it by giving reasons for my opinion, based on WP:RS / WP:V. You disagree without providing any argument to bck up your opinion. Not having hard and fast rules doesn't equal "anything goes". WP:NOTAVOTE explains that " "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus. " Opinions may differ, of course, but an opinion without any (expressed) policy- or guideline-based reasoning to back it up carries little weight. Fram (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but no guideline is cut and dried. Otherwise, as I said, we'd have no debate here. Whether an article meets notability guidelines is clearly often subjective. My argument is simple and entirely policy-based: The sources and awards demonstrate notability per WP:N. I don't have to pick apart every one to demonstrate why. That would be pointless and you'd still disagree with it, since our opinions of notability clearly differ. Wikipedia is not a bureaucratic machine with rigid rules. Please don't try to make it into one. And please don't try to explain Wikipedia procedures to me. That's patronising. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Patronising but necessary, apparently. The sources in the article are not independent, which is a requirement. Which leaves you with two primary sources about the awards. So you may claim that "the sources and awards demonstrate notability per WP:N", but the intro to that page: "We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. " states, and further "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. " Discussion about notability usually centers around "is this source long enough" or "is this routine coverage or not", not simply "I think it is notable so there". Fram (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Fram, you appear to be reading the "independence" criterion, shall we say, overly strenuously. If the only sources cited were reviews by the Space Gamer of products produced by Martian Metals on license from SJG, you would be quite correct: those would not be IS. However, most of the reviews here are of miniatures produced by Martian Metals on license from GDW - a direct competitor of SJG in this period - so Space Gamer's reviews of these do not show a conflict of interest. What is more, the Origins wins are documented and do represent a reliable IS in themselves (and also a pinnacle achievement for the firm). This, along with the reference I made to PRESERVE as a reason to Merge of the miniatures lines, is policy-based argumentation and not simply "so there". Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Fram's opinion on independence here is reasonable, though not one I share. I'd suggest you both just drop it, neither is really wrong and arguing is unlikely to change either of you opinions. Hobit (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{or}Just to be clear, I was not asserting that Fram's opinion here is "unreasonable", just that it is wrong in this context. Newimpartial (talk)

Keep the company itself, which has notability indicated by RS reviews and two industry-recognized Origins Awards. I will also be adding reviews from Dragon, another non-related RS, shortly. Merge the lines to the company's article and delete the other articles. Guinness323 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article and merge per the above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, we don't need all that. Per Guinness323 keep the company and merge where reasonable. I'd probably just redirect the lot of them to the company (without underlying deletion) and just let folks merge what's needed/appropriate. Hobit (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company clearly existed, and there are some (marginal) RS to prove that, but the mere existence of a thing is not proof of its WP:N. Due to the absence of WP:SIGCOV, this fails our WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Chetsford (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources" or WP:RS, and guidelines cannot be ignored for "opinion" without proper justification. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single reference I can find meets this criteria. Topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage or notability. Analog Horror, (Speak) 18:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find nothing of significance in doing an extensive WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge product lines into main article. The lines themselves clearly fail notability under any standard as mentioned by other editors above but I'm willing to see the articles/reviews in Dragon as (at least in aggregate) enough evidence of WP:SIGCOV.There's no doubt that Dragon was both independent of SJG and MM and a WP:RS for fantasy gaming at the time. WP:NOTTEMP also applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:VERIFY is one of Wikipedia's core policies and nothing has been shown to be verifiable. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC) Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Benilde School[edit]

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

Unremarkable secondary school. Coverage in independent sources not found. b uidhe 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with per WP:RS. --BonkHindrance (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of St. La Salle: Per WP:CHEAP. _SUPER ^ASTIG 02:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be redirected because it's not mentioned in the proposed target article. b uidhe 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, St. Benilde School is supervised by University of St. La Salle. Therefore, my vote stands no matter what. _SUPER ^ASTIG 12:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that a redirect doesn't make sense when the school isn't mentioned in the proposed redirect article. I could be persuaded to change my !vote if that changes and it's added to the article with a reliable independent source.Jahaza (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We normally DO allow articles on Secondary Schools. If not, it should be merged to an article on LaSalle Brothers' Schools in the Philippines; not to their university. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such an article though? We allow articles on secondary schools for notability, but they need to be verifiable too.Jahaza (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the information here should all be easily verifiable with some effort; also, as stated above, it is a secondary school, so the presumption is to keep it. The website could use more articles on Philippine high schools, not less.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Mevengue[edit]

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

I cannot confirm his playing for the Cameroonian national team, and if not, this is not a footballer meeting the inclusion standards. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found confirmation very easily, see [7] [8] [9] [10]. Other websites: [11]. There's not a lot of information online, unfortunately, but there's enough to write a properly referenced stub, and I'm sure he would have been written about locally offline. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looks like that was the Amateur team he won the CEMAC Cup with. Was on the bench for a friendly in Germany. May not pass, will keep looking. SportingFlyer T·C 00:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently raised a post over at WT:WPF that international stats of many African nations are too beefed up with U20, U23 and B team matches. Geschichte (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)′[reply]

Comment - Mevengue played for Cotonsport in one leg (and probably both legs) of the 2003 CAF Cup final against RCA. I realize the CAF Cup was the second-tier continental competition in Africa, but playing in the final is something that potentially makes him notable. He also played for Cameroon at the 2003 LG Cup (Iran) which may be an "A" international, but I'm not sure. I think it will be impossible to satisfy the GNG with online sources, but this footballer was likely among the very best domestic-based players in Cameroon from 2003 - 2005 (even though he was never a full professional). Jogurney (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that the 2003 LG Cup (Iran) matches are not FIFA "A" Internationals. I've seen sources indicate that Uruguay sent a "B" team, and Cameroon sent a U-21 team (which is odd because Mevengue would have been 25 at the time). Jogurney (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Ping me if any more sources can be found. Giant Snowman 21:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~coverage for playing and scoring in the 2003 CEMAC Cup final is close to meeting GNG~~. Played for years in top tier of Cameroon football, including in final of the 2003 CAF Cup against Raja Casablanca. Hard to think that there isn't a lot more coverage available in contemporary off-line Cameroonian sources. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going through a deeper search. Those CEMAC cup references aren't as strong as I thought. There's hints he played in an international friendly, but it's not clear. Hard to find any sources. Nfitz (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course 30 seconds later, I realise that there are real sources that show he was at least called up for a proper international match - November 17, 2004 against Germany. But did he play? Nfitz (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I did check the match sources from 11v11 and soccerway, both of those results show that he didn't play for the national squad in that friendly. HawkAussie (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Will be happy to change my vote if it can be clearly shown that CEMAC Cup games are A-level, which I'm sure they were not. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main problem here is the CEMAC Cup games and if they are A-level games but the thing is that Cameroon sent an Amateur team which did featured this player. He fails WP:FPL as the Cameroon league isn't a professional league so the real question is what to do with the CEMac Cup matches and unless they were official matches, I vote delete. HawkAussie (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reliability of sources should be discussed at WP:RSN. If it is determined that the sources are not reliable, another AfD nomination could be made. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pouya Bakhtiari[edit]

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

Notability issue Saff V. (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Saff V. (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Hi. What do you mean by "notability issues"? Secondly, you have mentioned that the article is notable fore an event. It covers all aspects of WP:EVENT and general criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Covered by third party sources worldwide and the event itself is notable. Gharouni^Talk 14:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gharouni. Also do mind that the nomination is by a user who has been warned by an admin to refrain from IRI pov-pushing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is enough secondary sources available in Persian for this article.فرهنگ2016 (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG but think the title should be moved to Shooting of Pouya Bakhtiari or Death of Pouya Bakhtiari.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: it means that Pouya Bakhtiari is not natable but the event for his death is. So your vote is a little confusing. Which subject is notable based on your search in google?Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment please provide RSes which confirm the notability. Just writing “ there is enough secondary sources available in Persian” is not helpful.Saff V. (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another disruptive contribution by Saff V. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc. Ping if you deem them inadequate. MS 会話 16:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms96 It seems that you don't familar with wp:RS or wp:RSP, for example independentpersian or news.gooya are not reliable. Rest of them are BIASED. WP:IIS demanded that Material available from sources that are self-published, primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article, but it must be possible to source the information that establishes the subject's real-world notability to independent, third-party sources.In addition BIASED asked that When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. So pleas provide independent, third-party sources to prove his notability.Saff V. (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Per Gharouni and others. Nika2020 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Clearly notable. ‍‍‍‍Telluride (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject and the particular event is notable. There was significant amount of coverage worldwide. - The9Man | (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ،The person does not meet the WP:PERSON. M1nhm (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Clearly notable. BlUeRiVeR20 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sfax Preparatory Engineering Institute[edit]

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

no separate notability DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NOTWEBHOST - it's a test prep course of a university. 00:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep It's not a test prep course of a university, it's an national institute of engineering cycles (2 years), part of the Sfax university (in an national administrative matter, the university runs multiple faculties, institutes, schools and other universities.) The policy is different from other countries. And the students will complete their cycle in any national or international engineering school. The article already include sources from national and regional independent media coverage (not tribal mentions), also the coverage would mostly be in different foreign languages other than english. (The article already exist on other Wikipedia)--Metalmed (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this single department should be merged with the main page. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your understanding, i don't mind if the article can be well merged with the main article too, but as quoated the WP:NFACULTY " If some faculties or academic colleges have significance and others do not, it may be the case that the institution's academic programs as a whole are notable.", well people always get confused about this : it's a whole different policies and education system in Tunisia as well as using different technical words, the University of Sfax and other exact similar universities in Tunisia was made to facilitate and orginize the paper works with the Ministries, dependings of each governorate (see Governorates of Tunisia). For example : most of the higher education institutions and faculties which are now runs under the University of Sfax are already older and was built as an university establishment (and still) and have even more significant history, which doesn't make sens to call it a department. My fear is that merging a lot of articles will make it a bit too long to read in the future. I hope that this topic will be discussed further more in Wikiproject Tunisia. Thanks again.--Metalmed (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to make sense that the "university" mainly exists for bureaucratic oversight by government, as its institutes predate its establishment: medicine '74, engineering '83, university '86. Also the institutes seem more connected with other instititutes of the same specialty across the country, rather than with their respective nominal universities.--89.206.114.25 (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IP above. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cryptocurrency tumbler. The majority does not think that the subject warrants a standalone article, but by merging the information is preserved. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Fog[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. Notorious scam site: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50037.620 分液漏斗 (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge content somewhere suitable - it seems to have gained RS coverage, making it likely a notably notorious scam. That said, it's very short, and might benefit from being part of a longer article - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bitcoin, perhaps under Bitcoin#Security? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a somewhat notable mixer, so cryptocurrency tumbler seems a good place to put this - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It only appears to be notable in the context of a particular theft, and it's only a minor aspect of the story even then. The general concept of a cryptocurrency tumbler is encyclopedic, but I don't really think that this particular one is by itself. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give some consideration for straight delete or alternate action
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an example of technical esoterica that finds little traction in the establishment press, but which is of interest to historians. It would be a gross disservice for such material to vanish down the memory-hole. --2601:444:380:8C00:1FC:1845:1C64:DAD6 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC) <just.another.IP.user>[reply]
Delete - How is this of any historical value? Why does this matter for an article with zero reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an example of fraudulent bitcoin behavior that helps to tell the story of how the bitcoin craze developed in its first decade, for good and for ill. It is of historical value to people who want to understand the history of bitcoin exploitation. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toughpigs: Shouldn't it be merged with Cryptocurrency tumbler, then? BonkHindrance (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to cryptocurrency tumbler. Where's the WP:SIGCOV? I'm not seeing any. Lots of brief mentions and unreliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cryptocurrency tumbler, the current article contains lots of brief mentions and unreliable sources, not much in the way of actually passing GNG. However, it probably deserves a sentence or so in the cryptocurrency tumbler article, which it does not currently have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . It's just not notable, and only one of many mixers that have existed. I'd love to see more expansion on cryptocurrency tumbler. Nanite (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Cider[edit]

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

There's zero notable about this company. A search for reliable sources comes up with nothing and the article is just a glorified advert for their products. Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically an advertisement DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleaned out the promo portions (list of cider types, mainly). Added a book reference and replaced two local newspaper links with webarchive links. Meets WP:CORP and WP:GNG and there is WP:SIGCOV. More can be done to improve the article, but the subject is notable. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm unsure about this one, as there is some degree of coverage even though it's mostly in review pieces. The argument would be stronger for an article on the company that produces it, as they've got stuff like this article in the LA Times. But it is still not a truly strong argument... PK650 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. References that were added, while RS, are passing mentions. Two local newspaper articles are interviews with the founder. Please review WP:NCORP sourcing requirements, they are not met. Renata (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional sources: [19], [20], [21]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cleanup work by Glane23 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Seems to barely pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Kabul bombing[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Jim Michael^(T) 10:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Jim Michael^(T) 10:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jim Michael^(T) 10:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable another bombing with a low death count. It is not news! WP:Crime 11S117 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a reliably sourced article about a very recent suicide bombing, in a major city, which killed 6 people & injured another 12. If this had happened in the West, no-one would want such an article deleted. Jim Michael (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You admitted that this story is not notable because a bombing happened in the same area with the same amount of casaulties without an article. Also you don't see an article for every mass shooting in the United States and Kabul is a warzone so it's not a good comparison with the west. 11S117 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't admit anything of the sort. If you're referring to the previous attack at the same military academy in May, it not having an article doesn't mean that it's not notable. Many notable attacks, organisations, places etc. don't have articles (yet). A case could be made for making the article about both attacks. An attack in the West of any variety with this many victims would certainly warrant an article. Jim Michael (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is the English Wikipedia site, so of course the main articles would be in the west. Guess what there is an Arabic Wikipedia site where they post all sort of attacks or bombings locally. Another problem, this is not notable it is just another bombing in a country that is used to it. If we made an article for every mass shooting in the United States we'd have to make over 300 articles and if we made an article for every attack in Afghanistan we'd make just as many. That is why we don't do that. 11S117 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's saying that we do or should have articles for every attack in any country, but this is a notable enough attack to warrant an article. To compare to the US, there's no doubt that a recent attack of any type in which 6 people were killed & 12 others injured would have an article & be very unlikely to be nominated for deletion. Jim Michael (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we made an article for every mass shooting in the United States? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We typically do if the number of victims is at least in the high single figures. Jim Michael (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously. If this had happened in a Western Anglophone country we would keep it without question, so there is no reason to delete it because it happened in Afghanistan. My only quibble is about the title, because it is, unfortunately, very unlikely that this will be the only bombing in Kabul this year. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it wouldn't even be nominated if it happened in a non-Anglophone Western country such as France or Germany.

It's standard practice that we don't usually include the month in the title of articles about crimes unless needed for disambiguation. In the highly likely event that another bombing occurs this year in Kabul, the month will be included in the titles of both this article & that of the future bombing (s). Jim Michael (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then start making the 50,000 bombing articles for the Iraq war because there are many that have been ignored throughout the century. 11S117 (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to WP:EVENTCRIT, events that have widespread (national or international) impact are notable. Since, this mishap lacks international impact, therefore it should be redirected to Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present). This was my opinion as per , WP:DELAY, WP:IHN & above one. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's of national & international significance due to it being the first major terrorist attack since the November 2019 Kabul bombing, damaging attempts at international negotiations with the Taliban.

You regard suicide bombings as mishaps?! Jim Michael (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt that you quoted says "national or international", so why do you base your further comment only on "international"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present). Bombings in Afghanistan are, unfortunately, far too common to warrant standalone articles anymore. Note the same approach is taken with school shootings in the US: see List of school shootings in the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at List of school shootings in the United States, and in every single case where there has been as many deaths as in the article being discussed here there is a separate article about the shooting. Are American deaths somehow worth more than Afghani deaths? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strawman argument trying to make it look like we don't care for the lives of Afghanis. Many things wrong with this, 1) clearly if you had your way, you're gonna have to make the 50,000 articles for all the Iraq bombings, Syria bombings, Nigeria bombings, and the other Afghanistan bombings that don't have articles and theyre a hell of a lot worse than this attack. 2nd) what about all the mass shootings that injure 10 or even kill 3 that's why we have the mass shooting for that particular year, because in the United States theres so many. But when it happens in Britian it gets national attention and why that be, because it's rare. Kabul bombings are not rare, they're pretty common so a bombing to this degree doesn't need an article. This is my problem with Jim Michael, he makes an article for every bombing, every gun attack. But instead of looking in depth of the attack, he has a sentence and then puts one link and calls it a day. 11S117 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there have been many attacks which are more notable than this one - but which do not have articles (yet) - is not a good reason to delete this one.

Bombings in Kabul are no longer as common - this was the first significant terrorist attack there for 3 months.

I've only made articles for a small minority of attacks. The large majority of those that I've created are much longer than 1 sentence & many have more than one RS backing them. Other editors are welcome to contribute to them. Jim Michael (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The United States is not Afghanistan. School shootings are still relatively rare, though the trend is not good. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria for mass shootings in the US are vague. A few people shot in a school or church in most cases receives an article, but several people shot in a bar or nightclub in most cases doesn't. I know that the criteria include things other than the number of victims, but it's still unclear as to what qualifies & what doesn't. Jim Michael (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG. Issues such as sourcing can be solved via normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - General notability too high for deletion.--89.206.114.25 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important massacre that killed many people. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Unimportant bombing that killed a few people. How many more important bombing in Afghanistan have occurred, which do not (and should not) have articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you claim it to be unimportant? I don't know of a guideline which requires or even suggests a minimum number of victims to meet a notability requirement.

Would you want it deleted if it had happened in the Western world? Jim Michael (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "man bites dog" issue (news in the US, not so much in South Korea). It's uncommon in the West, but an all-too-frequent occurrence in Afghanistan. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist bombings are no longer common in Afghanistan - this is the only one since November. Jim Michael (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:EVENTCRIT. Also the attack is took place just at the US Taliban Ceasefire/Peace agreements. Mr.User200 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Houston Texans. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toro (mascot)[edit]

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

No evidence this topic passes WP:GNG. Could SOFTDELETE and merge to the team's page, but there is nothing (referenced) to merge so redirect is the best option per PRESERVE unless someone can find sources for the mascot's significance. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find anything that would make it notable above "It exists". Perhaps he should run for mayor? - X201 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Houston Texans. I'm finding a few mentions of him here and there, but nothing that would indicate that this would need to be split off from the main article on the team, where he is already covered. As stated by the nom, as there is no reliably sourced info here, Merging is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Wrong forum but since we're here anyway, agree a redirect is the best option. Smartyllama (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi V. Melwani is still running. – Joe (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi V. Melwani[edit]

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

The subject is not notable and the previous edits seem to have been executed by someone close to the subject. Syriusa (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Syriusa (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is general consensus to keep. Whether to subsequently merge and/or rename any articles may proceed in the usual way. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of Northern Ireland[edit]

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

The content within this article was previously in Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a part, so there is no need for this article, as the two different numbering systems for GB and NI can be handled in the same article. See for example the article for Cyprus, which covers both the north and south under the same article.

This page should go back to being a redirect. Elshad (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Elshad (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No reason for a separate article, unnecessary fork: no due weight concerns or anything, and not an overly large article so that splits become required. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - retain as Northern Ireland is a distinct, devolved, administration within the UK, with its own legal system and regulations, and could (in theory) further separate its handling of this matter. I see no undue weight in having a separate article. SeoR (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While, (as was the case for the split of Vehicle registration plates of British overseas territories back in 2017) the editor who split the section should probably have opened a discussion about the proposed split before undertaking it, personally I think it was correct to split it. And the resulting article should probably be kept. Albeit with additional effort required to "complete" the split. Such that the WP:CFORK concerns (noted by other contributors above) and the content that remains in the original article, would be addressed/summarised. That being said, the rationale (for a split and for keeping a separate article) seems to stack-up to me. I say this as the subject is sufficiently distinct as to stand on its own (in the sense expected by WP:CONSPLIT). And there are sufficient references and sources which deal with the subject as its own "thing" , such that we can/could/should probably do the same. In short, should the splitting editor probably have sought input before a split? Yes (per WP:CON). Should the splitting editor have completed that split properly to avoid content forks? Yes (per WP:CFORK). However, does that mean this subject isn't discrete enough to remain "split"? No (I would recommend a "keep"). Guliolopez (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we are to keep them separate then the original article should be renamed Vehicle registration plates of Great Britain, as it makes no sense to use the name of the United Kingdom whilst only including 3 of 4 countries. Although I still favour a merge. Elshad (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that renaming. SeoR (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / rename original article (NI: link to new page, delete the rest). Sorry, next time I will open a discussion first. Walser123 (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It has been four years since the last discussion and consensus can change. The consensus in this discussion is to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movebubble[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails wp:gng and wp:ncorp GDX420 (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNGand WP:NCORP Most of the sources only mention the subject in passing. The sources which are about the subject are prime examples of PR Churnalism and do not impart the depth of coverage required for a serious encyclopaedia article.GDX420 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the previous decision was no consensus existed for deletion. I don't see why circumstances will have changed since that decision. It clearly has some independent and substantive coverage in major papers and websites, but not enough to make it undeniably notable. Yet there doesn't seem to be an overriding sense of churnalism or dependency on press releases to justify deletion either. The first deletion debate still seems relevant and I don't see the purpose of a second. Editors should refocus and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Llemiles (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. gnews reveals just passing mentions or industry related press. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnotable and self-promotional. Dorama285 (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Austin Powers characters#Vanessa Kensington. Editors are of course welcome to merge anything they see appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Kensington[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. AfD 10 year ago was keep due to 'major role'/'google hits'. BEFORE does not show analysis of character that goes beyond one sentence or so ([23]=[24]). The mention in [25] is even more minute. At best, SOFDELETE by redirecting to parent franchise, unless someone can find anything in-depth I missed? But please, check the sources before googlehitting us. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 19 February 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} 11:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable, per the last AFD. Would we delete Elizabeth Bennet or Elle Woods! I think not! Seriously though, I think the article can be improved and the topic is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which argument from the last AfD are you referring to? WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:KEEPPER, sigh --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. 12 years is a mere blip in human history, I shall not unduly besmirch the Wikipedians of 2008. Why do you sigh, fellow editor? Not all arguments are created equal, I admit that. Do you remember when there was a whole essay called WP:HOTTIE that essentially said all hot woman articles should be kept? This was cited all the time, only partly in jest, and people wonder why we have a gender gap in editors. And to be clear, I most definitely do not agree with that rationale, and see nothing wrong with you making this nomination to discuss the notability of this topic. I see there are multiple scholarly articles that discuss Ms. Kensington, a few of which I added to the article already. But I would suggest that gender gap issues may be at play in the views of the notability of this character. Articles on male protagonists of fiction abound on this project (look at this beautiful unreferenced ode to Ender Wiggin), and I know that's not a defense to deletion either, but its food for thought.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: Wiki of 2008 was much less mature when it came to arguments, and it shows. As I've noted in the op, WP:GOOGLEHITS and invitations of in-universe notability are no longer considered good arguments. I will add Ender Wiggin to my to-review list, with a nod to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least in 2008 editors used to try to improve articles. There's scholarship out there about this character, as seen in the few cites I quickly scrounged up!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Austin Powers characters#Vanessa Kensington. The article’s information is partly in-universe, and the parts that are not are not actually about the character, but the actress who played her and the film’s rating, those parts can be moved to Elizabeth Hurley. All in all, the article fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Austin Powers characters#Vanessa Kensington because of its brevity. No need for a spinout article at this point. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Character isn't in the same league as Elizabeth Bennet to have a standalone article at this time; if she similarly lasts 100 years, perhaps then. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Vanesssa Kensington is going to last forever, whether she is as forgotten as Nick Whiffles or not!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richa Sinha[edit]

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

Non notable actress. lack of independent reliable resources. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR DMySon 11:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon 11:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional piece lacking independent sources. Dorama285 19:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, failed to meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to attain notability as per norms, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG . The9Man | (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As noted below, individuals must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Passing mentions such as being quoted aren't sufficient. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parthesh Patel[edit]

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

Recently created article about a politician that fails WP:NPOL, since he never won any elections, nor held major public post. (article was previously deleted as CSD A7) DBig Xrayᗙ 11:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

He has not stand up for any elections but held posts which are vital for any political parties. He is active in managing multiple political parties and its people's profile and creating an election strategy. This page need not to be deleted. -Hamza Ghanchi 12:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by હમઝા ઘાંચી (talk • contribs)

— Note to closing admin: હમઝા ઘાંચી (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Unless he is the president of a major political party, any other post does not automatically mean that an article can be created. See WP:NPOL to understand the requirements. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the stated person falls under the political person who has significant press coverage(RULE:Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.). I have mentioned online news link to verify the information in the article. Kindly remove the Deletion Tag. Here are the additional reference links for proving significance. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]- -Hamza Ghanchi 05:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by હમઝા ઘાંચી (talk • contribs)

References

It is common for such politicians to have these kind of passing mentions, sadly these are not enough for a separate article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Most references have just passing mentions.-Nizil (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does have the notable references as not always in a title tag but he is highly cited by major news papers, Please remove the deletion tag as this article has notability. examples:^[1]^[2] - Hamza Ghanchi 06:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by હમઝા ઘાંચી (talk • contribs)

References

These are passing mentions and mentions of name, these kind of sources do not make it notable. we would need news articles/magazines that talk about the person in great detail. If you cannot find them, it means the person does not deserve an article. see WP:GNG--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG. Dorama285 19:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and you need more than just passing mentions to prove WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tag is not required, there are many reliable news resources and references which proves notability of the stated person. Here are another links and official website of Parthesh Patel which will derive more authenticity of the article on Wikipedia. Also note that article is still going to be expanded with more reliable information. Deletion is not required at this time. - Hamza Ghanchi 07:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Both of these are passing mentions in routine campaign coverage and Counterview, which is a website where users submit their own stories, is definitely not a reliable source. Patel's personal website is neither an independent nor a reliable source of information and does absolutely nothing to establish notability. GPL93 (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

References

There are multiple citation which clearly states the notability of the person(in main article). Multiple news sources are available to prove the credibility of the stated person even on the live article. I think, deletion Tag is not required if the person is having enough credible information on open news media. I can expand the article further with more information. - Hamza Ghanchi 06:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by હમઝા ઘાંચી (talk • contribs)

Can we please keep this article as of now, it is going to be expanded soon. - Hamza Ghanchi 08:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:MERCY. I have reviewed the sources again and My opinion stands unchanged. We cannot possible have articles on people who are not notable. If he becomes MLA / MP. then you can start an article. not before that. ⋙–DBig Xrayᗙ 08:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir he is a social worker, EX 15 points prime minister of India representative, founder of Naman & Har har mahadev seva sangh. He is head of Rashtriya sikh sangat Jharkhand. He is state spokes person BJP for last 15 years. Taranpreetsingh1995 (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amarpreet Singh Kale[edit]

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

Becoming spokesperson of the state unit is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. The 18 sources of self published, unreliable sources and political activities made the article WP:REFBOMB. The article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL due to lack of a political victory. State spokesperson is not a notable post to merit his own article. None of the rest of the work done by the subject merits an article either. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving as a party spokesperson is not enough to warrant an article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and sourcing doesn't establish a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=amarpreet+singh+kale&sca_esv=578407962&tbm=nws&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOiMWPv6KCAxUQwjgGHU8lA6EQ_AUoAnoECAMQBA&biw=1920&bih=963&dpr=1 you may open this link and see pls, requesting you to kindly help regain this wikipedia page Taranpreetsingh1995 (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir he is a social worker, EX 15 points prime minister of India representative, founder of Naman & Har har mahadev seva sangh. He is head of Rashtriya sikh sangat Jharkhand. He is state spokes person BJP for last 15 years. All the articles are not at all self published these are national news papers. Taranpreetsingh1995 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. No objections to deletion raised - soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM seems appropriate. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard T. Warner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable businessman and TV presenter. Tagged for notability and citations for 9+ years. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The first AfD in 2011 was withdrawn by the nominator joedecker without discussion, saying that he had "found a bit more". I searched Google and Google News today without success. – Fayenatic London 11:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. He has a very common name, I'm happy to change vote if anyone can find national articles on him. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Death Note characters#Near. Merging from history remains possible. Sandstein 20:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Near (Death Note)[edit]

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

This character does not appear to pass WP:NFICTION/GNG. Almost all is pure WP:PLOT outside of the 'creation and conception' section, but this is PRIMARY (based on article(s) by the character's creator), reception is limited to a single quote that is mostly about other characters anyway, and I am not seeing much else in my BEFORE. This is a manga/movie-only character, so very low visibility (outside Japan at least) compared to anime characters anyway. Maybe there's something in the Japanese sources? As far as I can tell ja wiki article does not have any more information/sources, so it's of little help. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 19 February 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} 10:46, 19 February 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} 10:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has long been argued that commentary from a work's creator is not primary, but secondary, transformative of the creator's thoughts. That said, they certainly aren't independent sources that are still required by WP:N. --Masem (t) 11:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that such references certainly are not primary references. The primary reference is the fictional work itself. Other references about the work are not primary, even if they originate from the work's author or other entities associated with the author.

Now, such references are probably not WP:INDEPENDENT; and that is pertinent to a notability inquiry, But there's no WP:PRIMARY issue. TJRC (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing, I'd suggest Merge to List of Death Note characters, which can take all of the development stuff (maybe need to take a bit of thinning but not removal) and the brief bit of reception, but should drastically trim the plot stuff. that list is getting a tad long but I don't want to see it lose the development stuff it has on most of the characters. --Masem (t) 20:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Development information is definitely good to have in an article, but there needs to be some kind of critical reception. TTN (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion The character of Near has appeared in three separate literary works as well as live action adaptations. I think we need to flush out this character with specific references and citations of critical analysis. Let's not delete it just yet, but add the header that it needs additional references and details. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @GimmeChoco44: WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not the best argument. We are beyond it, as in - me and others, presumably, looked for them and failed to find any. Did you? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you say "We're beyond that", I wonder if we're rushing to judgment, with this suggestion for deletion being 1 week old.
  - The character is part of a duo of primary antagonists along with Mello_(Death_Note) which make up the second half of the serialized narrative. In the scope of Wikipedia's coverage of literary characters, I feel that Near merits an entry, albeit a revised and better developed entry than the current version. With the other character's Wikipedia entry continuing to develop, there will be an imbalance from the pov of readers and editors, and we'll be back to creating the characters page from zero in the future.
  - I'd suggest an intermediate step of calling for development (WP:ATD) before outright deletion. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should check out WP:A&M/CHARACTERS on how successful character articles are created. The layout of the article is fine, but the problem is notability here. Reception should include as many reviews as possible, while the creation and conception section needs to include secondary sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good resource. I'll take on the expansion of the article if we can avoid getting it speedily deleted.

How about a 30-day window to review & update?-- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such extensions are usually applied to AfDs, but I am sure you can ask the closing admin to draftify it in your userspace instead of just deleting this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. It's going to be a lot easier to modify the existing page than go through a prolonged process of bringing info back to the manga's character list before creating a new page with better sources in the future.

As I stated before, this character takes up a sizeable part of the narrative and there are multiple sources and commentary regarding Near and his counterpart Mello_(Death_Note), who still maintains his own separate page. The current page is lazy and needs to be updated asap. I'm confident it can recover and satisfy the notability and review requirements, but we need the as-yet-assigned admin to put the deletion on hold. -- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Death Note characters, this way at least the sources can be salvaged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of internet slang classified abbreviations[edit]

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

entries mostly similar to a dictionary definition; no clear criteria for in/exclusion; single/no good source...

(PROD immediately struck down by article author; this needs discussing) CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The article has been moved/renamed since nomination. CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question can someone explain the title to me? My immediate thought is that it makes no sense whatsoever, and that at the very least a move to something like list of internet slang abbreviations might be worthwhile - but is there something I'm missing? Does that title actually make sense? Hug^syrup 10:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugsyrup: The title makes no sense. It should be titled something like List of internet/text slang or abbreviations. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I am (probably) in favor of keep but move/rename to something that isn't gibberish. The concept is notable and extensively-covered, and it won't be difficult to find numerous sources that discuss internet slang abbreviations as a list/group. Hug^syrup 11:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm undecided. I've done some work on the article and I think the concept of these abbreviations/initialisms is notable, and a reasonable article could be created about their development, use, popularity etc. In addition, I believe there are numerous sources covering these types of abbreviations as a group, meaning a list article could be sourced. However, there is already substantial content at SMS language and a list at SMS_language#Conventionalised_examples_and_vocabulary so is this standalone list really worthwhile? Not sure. I'm going to keep looking to see what sources I can dredge up and that might help decide things. Not sure of the relevance of the wiktionary article existing (mentioned below). I don't think the presence of that should have much bearing on whether a Wikipedia list can be kept. Hug^syrup 16:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm landing on delete purely on the basis that it essentially duplicates the article and list mentioned above. Open to a redirect as an alternative, but I'm not sure the current name is particularly intuitive or likely as a search term. Hug^syrup 10:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or send back to draft. This is a notable topic, and lists have regularly appeared in RS. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

renamed 14:47, 19 February 2020‎ to Мандичка & Hugsyrup, np (I didn't see Hugsyrup so the relevant summary doesn't mention the similar name suggestion being an influence directly) Diametakomisi (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information already exist at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_internet_slang Dream Focus 15:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is already at SMS_language#Whole_word_or_phrase_abbreviation and a similar list has already been moved from List of SMS abbreviations to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_internet_slang. Any discrepancies should be added there, though an excessively long or indiscriminate list would be unencyclopedic. Reywas92^Talk 19:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as just mentioned, it;'s a very short partial duplicate of an existing article. (an existingarticle that obviously needs some attention, but that's a separate atter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete as per Reywas92.--89.206.114.25 (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The article has been moved/renamed since nomination. CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted-Redirected @ 17:14, 24 February 2020 to Wiktionary Appendix:English internet slang, after Dream Focus 15:48, 19 February & Reywas92Talk 19:29, 19 February Diametakomisi (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manila (1500)[edit]

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

Just like 1365, 1405, and most recently deleted 1258, the article lacks significant coverage. _SUPER ^ASTIG 08:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _SUPER ^ASTIG 08:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. _SUPER ^ASTIG 08:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As it stands, the article is indistinguishable from a fabricated hoax. –Austronesier (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources used in the article establish that there was a battle in Manila on the given date. Colin Gerhard (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only notable Battle of Manilla I can find is 1945. Certainly nothing shows up for this date. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find substantial coverage to pass GNG or to support the article's claims. Some of the claims are contradictory with stuff - the Kingdom of Tondo article states that the Lakan Suko figure was leader from 1417–1430 (although without a source). Delete this one as not verifiable. User:Sirfurboy - the 1898 battle's notable too. Hog Farm (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything has the "citations needed" template. Also, there are only two references, and one of them is a failed verification. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 02:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm the one who created the article and I myself admit that the references are too scant but I did read about it in a website I can't reproduce anymore, I was hoping somebody else might supply it and new references showing that there was a conquest of Manila by Sultan Bolkiah, they supplied one, according to Wiliam Henry Scott who set it "about 1500" but not exactly at that date, Source Here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Manila_(1500), nevertheless the article is so riddled with holes I think it's best if we delete this article and migrate the relevant content to a new article stating "1500s" not "1500" as the historian William Henry Scott said, that was my original intent, to make it a 1500s dateline instead of the 1500 one but Wikipedia didn't accept it, how does one make ranged dates BTW?.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent a future AfD: I strongly suggest not to "migrate the relevant content to a new article". All sources only provide info about a reported transition of power from a local polity to the Sulatnate of Brunei. Scott relies on Brunei folk history in calling this a "conquest", while Junker suggests a more differentiated view. This material may be included in History of the Philippines (900–1565)#Attack by the Bruneian Empire (1500) (which certainly needs some cleanup), but there is no documentation of an event that deserves a standalone article called "Battle [or whatever] of Manila (c. 1500)". –Austronesier (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It lacks significant coverage, only Scott so far mentioned such a battle by using Brunei folk history. But in his book "Barangay", he only made a fleeting mention about it, without providing further details. Later scholars like Donoso and Fluckiger dismissed the invasion narrative. Stricnina (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. It's a bad sign when a battle has an unknown date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage with this title. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sparrow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In-game character from the Tony Hawk's series. Previously deleted 12 years ago(!), thanks to JalenFolf for pointing that out. No actual relevant information, the sources provided aren't considered reliable. WP:VG has a well-curated list of reliable sources (see WP:VG/RS) and a custom Google search engine based on that list. No actual coverage by reliable sources regarding the character.

The Polygon article is actually a user-submitted piece.
GamesRadar has a list of "12 most satisfying punches".
The only actual useful information is in USGamer's "From Busted Teeth to Broken TVs: The Oral History of Tony Hawk's Underground", but that's it. The rest are user-submitted reviews and a list of cheat codes. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Tony Hawk's Underground, as was the consensus in the years-old AFD. Nothing in those 12 years have made the character any more notable than he was then. As the nom discussed, nearly all of the sources being used in the article are unusable, either being trivial mentions, from unreliable sources, or fluff pieces. Searches for additional sources turned up nothing in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not inherited. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails the notability criteria. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 06:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly disagree with everything stated above. Most arguments made should be adressed in the GAN but are irrelevant for the deletion. While it should be debated in a GAN, the character's relevance is undebatable and why it is nominated for deletion is puzzling to me. Please consider the following points:
- The character is probably the most noteworthy in any sports game ever made. The reception and legacy section details, even if some of the articles may be user-submitted, a strong relevance. The fact that they are partly user-submitted can be adressed in the GAN but says nothing about actual relevance. Also, the nominator pointed out other sources exist, so they might as well be used. Relevance is not debatable here.
- The character appeared in 4 AAA games and a PSP release and is playable in each of them except one. Lucky Chloe is an unimportant character that appears in one (!) Tekken, has zero relevance for the series, yet has an own article. Same goes for most characters in Final Fantasy VI, most of them are GAs. Arbiter (Halo) is not even a character, yet is a FA. I could go on with examples for hours. Don't get me started on every unimportant side character from Lord of the Rings. So, why do we draw a line with Eric Sparrow?
- I tell you why. If you look at the GAs on video games, you see a strong bias towards Japanese RPG and fighting game characters (I'm not at all saing it is intentional). Especially the latter's relevance could be heavily debated. There are barely a dozen non-Japanese characters here. Yes, Eric Sparrow comes from a franchise of sports games. The best-selling of its generation to be exact. He is no less of a character then any other, sadly people tend to look down upon sports games and everything associated with it. We have a fleshed out, sourced article here that breaks that mold, yet people want to delete it, while keeping hundreds of much more questionable articles.

--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DasallmächtigeJ, we're discussing the character's relevance, so it clearly is debatable. The sources provided are not reliable, primary sources and user submitted. WP:NOTABILITY is WP:NOTINHERITED. You have to prove stand-alone notability: you can't just claim it is and leave it at that. Just because Tony Hawk's or specifically Tony Hawk's Underground passes the WP:GNG, doesn't mean everything associated with it does too. Yes, we know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Maybe you don't think that Lucky Chloe meets the notability requirement, yet that is still sourced by clearly reliable WP:VG/RS'es like IGN, GameSpot, GamePro and GameRevolution, unlike Eric Sparrow.

Like I said, there's a well-curated list of reliable sources, and the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine works fantastic. So if I look up "Eric Sparrow", I get five results. But hey, I could've made a mistake. I could've been too quick to judge. Let's go through the sources used in the article:

A "hands on" piece by IGN, it's about the game, and not about Eric Sparrow so does not necessarily prove stand-alone notability
The USGamer piece, already discussed, is the only thing notable
The Polygon user-submitted opinion piece does not prove stand-alone notability
Sources numbers four through ten are references to Tony Hawk's games. So those are all WP:PRIMARY sources, which might prove Eric Sparrow appears in the game, but don't count for notability
The GameRevolution Tony Hawk's Underground review is also about the game, and mentions Eric once
And so does GameRevolution's Tony Hawk's Underground 2 review, just once
Number thirteen is a repetition of the first, IGN, a review, and not about Eric Sparrow specifically
The Destructoid piece is about the game, though it does mention Sparrow more than most. Yet I'm pretty sure that "In Hawaii, Sparrow reveals himself as the ultimate snake in the grass. Sparrow, in what is one of gaming's most memorable acts of villainy, steals footage of the protagonist's McTwist over the whirring blade of a helicopter. He then edits himself into the video clip -- using what's best described as technical wizardry -- and uses the fudged footage to launch his career into the stratosphere.", italics my emphasis, is meant facetiously
Numbers 15 through 20 are not reliable sources (I've double-checked the WP:VG/RS list) and again, don't help

You think Eric Sparrow is "probably the most noteworthy in any sports game ever made"? I think there is no WP:SNOWBALL chance that the outcome of this discussion is anything else than delete. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are primary or are just mentioned a few times by video game publications. That doesn't assert any kind of notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing the application methodology in my essay. A lack of significant coverage in reliable sources focused on the subject specifically means this article is not notable enough to be a standalone article on the encyclopedia. Neutral on a redirect; it seems like an odd name redirect, but I’ve seen stranger. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma and others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The prose of the reception is quite the stretch - it’s pretty weak. This looks like another one of those fictional character articles where all someone did is copy/paste every instance of a source mentioning him and included, disregarding the fact that little of substances is actually said. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable character, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Close Suspend Deletion until GA Review is completed Regice2020 (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Not a valid reason to close a deletion discussion. The GA review hasn't even been started. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 06:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do that, Regice2020? Besides the fact that most of the people here vote delete, WP:KEEP says nothing about an ongoing GAN to keep articles from being AfD'ed. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In order for an article to meet the General notability guideline the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here on this occassion there is a lack of in-depth reliable coverage due to a lot of the sources being user submitted hence it does not meet the guideline. In response to some of DasallmächtigeJ's if you think that Lucky Chloe and Arbiter (Halo) do not meet WP:GNG I suggest you discuss it on their respective talk pages but pointing that out here does not warrant this article to be kept (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current sources seem to be absolute fluff as dissected above. Probably wouldn't hurt to draft it. TTN (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix representation of tensors[edit]

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

The sourcing of this article is quite poor (one of them is a link to a submission on Vixra out of all things, and the other is not even by a career mathematician). The writing contains significant spelling and grammar errors and would require a significant overhaul.

It is even wrong in many cases. For example, we are not required to work in a fixed orthonormal basis. If I apply a change of basis in $\mathbb {R} ^{n}$ , then the metric tensor simply changes accordingly and we get a correct form of the metric tensor for the new basis. In fact, the point being missed by both cited authors is emphatically that a linear transformation is a (1, 1) tensor while a bilinear form (in particular, including metric tensors) is a type (0, 2) tensor that operates by taking the transpose of one vector before multiplying the result of that by the matrix and the other argument (in this order). I am not that proficient in differential geometry but, given how the rest of our texts on the metric tensor, based on scholarly works, reject the notion that this is something "wrong" with the matrix notation, this article comes off as a WP:COATRACK, specifically a thinly-veiled pushing of this WP:FRINGE view (as evidenced by the unreliability of these two sources). In other words, the whole article appears to be a gross violation of WP:DUE. This aside from the fact that neither the Christoffel symbols nor the Levi-Civita symbol are tensors.

On a broader note, this topic likely is notable, but the problems with the article are so severe that a complete rewrite is needed. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is essentially a content fork of tensor, based on the standard fact that tensors form a vector space and matrices can be identified with (1, 1) tensors. At most, this could be summarized in one or two lines in tensor, if this is not there (I have not read this article in details). D.Lazard (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete Replay to D.Lazard: Please, first read the source articles in details - and then point out where exactly is the error/problem (it's best to use an example). In first source (web page) - the author clearly shows where is the problem using as example metric tensor from relativity theory - please study this and point out where is problem with author logic. Kamil Kielczewski (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Replay to Jasper Deng: you write:

(...) while a bilinear form (in particular, including metric tensors) is a type (0, 2) tensor that operates by taking the transpose of one vector before multiplying the result of that by the matrix and the other argument (in this order). - so I understand that

[T_{ij}]\cdot [v^{i}]

is "changed" to

[T_{ij}]\cdot [v_{i}]

(there is still problem with matrix multiplication (is forbidden to multiply matrix in right side by row vector) and also output result variance in this approach) - and some implicit transposition is imposed - I don't think it is true - can you provide source which shows/proof your words (or give explicite proof)? If you not read in details my sources please do it again - they point out (in example with metric tensor from relativity theory) that problem with "wrong matrix notation" is that it gives wrong result (variance) AFTER multiplication. As far I know something like "implicit transposition" doesn't exist (unless you want to introduce it as a some kind of complication). The sources are simple and clear - they shows examples - you can verify them using simple logic even if you don't feel, using your words: "that proficient in differential geometry". Kamil Kielczewski (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Kamil Kielczewski: I still stand by my statements, especially as more reputable sources like [26] universally agree on this expression with the transpose. I taught undergraduate multivariable calculus and have strong understanding of matrix math, and all our textbooks on linear algebra use this convention for bilinear forms. Of course you can left-multiply a square matrix by a row vector of the same length: it’s the same as taking the transpose of the matrix, multiplying by the original column vector, and taking the transpose of the result. A general bilinear form can be given as $\mathbf {x} ^{t}\mathbf {Ay}$ , and the matrix you see as the "metric tensor" serves the role of A here. See first fundamental form for an explicit example. Remember, we're not looking for a row vector per se, but rather, a member of the dual space of the original vector space. The expression obtained by holding y constant here is scalar-valued and linear in x, therefore it is a covector; taking the transpose of $\mathbf {Ay}$ yields the desired row vector representation. If you cannot understand something as basic as this, then you really are in no position to be assessing correctness of content in this field. But that aside, you have an even more fundamental problem. These sources you cited are not reliable, and unjustifiably assume that all tensors operate by simple one-sided matrix multiplication, and somehow that this is the sole matrix representation of a tensor. This is wrong: the metric tensor is a clear example of where both the row and column indices are of the same kind. You also failed to address the vast amount of spelling and grammar mistakes, which I am not going out of my way to fix.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jasper Deng's comment. To editor Kamil Kielczewski: It is not a task for a Wikipedia editor to verify correctness and value of cited articles. It is the work of journal editors and reviewers. Here both sources have never been reliably published, nor cited in WP:secondary sources. So they are original research (Wikipedia meaning), and the content of the article must be deleted per Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. The title of the article must also be deleted (that is the article must not be transformed into a redirect) since it is confusing for non experts because of the implicit confusion between arrays and matrices, which are different concepts, although related. Thanks to Kamil Kielczewski whose "replays" make clearer that the content of the article is WP:OR. D.Lazard (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: the problem with "standard" but wrong matrix representation (or array representation) is very simple - lets look on 2D case

{\begin{bmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\\\end{bmatrix}}

for this representation you cannot determine tensor variance (it loose information) - you don't know if this is

g_{ij}

,

g^{ij}

or

g_{i}^{j}

. This error occurs in many literature sources. Notation presented in article solve this problem.

@Kamil Kielczewski: I don't care about this perceived nonstarter of a problem. True, a bare matrix could represent type (2, 0), (1, 1) (linear maps), or (0, 2) (bilinear forms). But remember that matrices are always with respect to a (set of) bases. In this case, it is always clear from context what kind of tensor is meant here (and super- and sub-script notation will always be used in complicated cases); if the metric tensor is meant, you know its output is a scalar, and therefore it is of type (0, 2), and thus the inverse of the tensor is of type (2, 0). It really isn't that complicated. There's no rule saying that we must encode the information of tensor type in the dimensions of a matrix representation. I perceive this issue as more you simply not having learned enough about tensors, and thus being confused. Ask at WP:RDMA if this still isn't clear to you, but repeating your point will do nothing to sway us, and cannot substitute for actual reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Dengi: I think that representation which loose information about object which represents is bad representation (and often leads to confusion)

@Kamil Kielczewski: That's your opinion, you are entitled to it, but it will not be Wikipedia's voice since you have failed to satisfy the verifiability requirements, and the standard form has been used without confusion by greats such as Stephen Hawking–so I doubt it causes any significant confusion. We are not here to right the great wrongs you perceive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and then later send through AfC. This is a brand-new article, not yet ready for mainspace, and any issues can be hashed out through usual editing processes and discussion. --JBL (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although the fact that Vixra is being used is a very bad sign. --JBL (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Hence why I deemed the article unsalvageable).—Jasper Deng (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relies upon viXra -> beyond recovery. XOR'easter (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the words in the title are frequently used in conjunction with one another, a casual Google/Google Scholar search might give the impression that the topic is wiki-notable. But this article violates policy, there is literally nothing in it that can be salvaged, and we don't need an article with this title when tensor exists. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The writing is sub-draft-level, it presents a POV "basic principle" which it then violates for tensors of order >= 3, etc. Even though this article exists to go into specifics, the treatment in Tensor is better. Mgnbar (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing here that would potentially be salvageable by allowing incubation as a draft. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete I agree there isn't much in the way of reliable sources given, a cursory Google Search did turn up [27] an article in International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology but it seems to be locked behind a $50 paywall. In any case, I didn't see any secondary sources. D.Lazard suggested if anything is salvageable here it could be added to the Tensor article and I tend to agree, but, reference issues aside, most of the material seems too WP:TEXTBOOKy for WP. --RDBury (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get through the paywall from where I am at the moment, but that paper has accumulated a grand total of 2 citations since 1984, suggesting that it was either wrong, boring, or both. If nobody else cared, we shouldn't either. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I was able to, and while this is a promising text in terms of reliability, it does not at all support what the article author has been trying to insert into the article and appears to be an uncommon (minority) formulation. Email me (Special:EmailUser/Jasper Deng) if you'd like a copy. One source does not notability make.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. A (0,2) tensor can be represented as a matrix. The rest of the article is unsourced, trivial, or misleading. (Invited from WT:MATH.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hands down. — Kamil Kielczewski (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

vixra as a source? Delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a young students sudden realization that a rank-3 tensor is a cube of numbers, and an awkward attempted articulation thereof. Author appears unaware of the use of $e_{i}$ as a standard notation for basis vectors, which he appears to be re-inventing, de novo, with non-standard and awkward notation. From what I can tell, after quick glance, most of what is written there is is conceptually correct; it just doesn't connect with standard textbooks (taught in sophomore-year college, last I looked). As such, it doesn't convey the "a-hah" moment that students need to have. At any rate, first non-trivial example, the Christoffel symbols aren't even a tensor, as is well-known. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually use cube of numbers for represent rank-3 tensor is not good because it lose information about tensor variance e.g. if you have cube of numbers then you cannot deduce that you deal with $T_{ijk},T_{\ jk}^{i},T^{ijk},...$ - this kind of representation is just wrong (however in cartesian coordinate system it is valid because we not distict co/contra-variance there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamil Kielczewski (talk • contribs) 23:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- viXra articles as sources? No, this goes against the principle that Wikipedia articles need to be based on information in reliable, secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 06:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Complete Keep Consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara McGowan[edit]

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

This person does not meet the requirements for notability. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Acronym (political organization). I'm not seeing standalone notability, but a redirect is an obvious WP:ATD and probably should have been considered before bringing to AFD. Hug^syrup 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Astrophobe. There are enough good sources there - apologies, I either missed those when I looked, or I scanned them too quickly and misinterpreted them as being primarily about the company and not the individual. But I agree, there are sufficient articles that focus in depth on McGowan herself. Hug^syrup 17:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugsyrup: I think this is definitely not your fault -- I did a pretty sizable revision, including adding some sources, after you posted your comment. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Short version: this is a WP:BLP with 26 (!) WP:RS in the references, including several strong WP:RSP, and it could easily have more. Long version: The article's subject -- not Acronym, but specifically McGowan -- has been the primary subject of what the New York Times referred to as "glowing profiles": this Ozy profile is a full magazine profile of her, and this Politico piece is explicitly framed around covering McGowan. Coverage which is nominally focused on her company is often substantially about her too. Long pieces by various perennial sources, like this Bloomberg piece and this New Yorker piece, are framed entirely around McGowan, not Acronym. Other pieces include long sections on her, like this Atlantic piece. These are not pieces about Acronym with incidental coverage of McGowan. Third, incidental coverage of her is just exceptionally high-volume. She has been quoted, or actions by her have been covered, in major news outlets so often that it's hard to pick which ones to include in the article without introducing a WP:OVERCITE problem -- not a normal issue for a WP:BLP that doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Just do a simple Google news search for "Tara McGowan" and you will see pages and pages of results that either quote her or make reference to her, easily dozens of them from strong perennial sources. Finally, she has several accolades, which is not typical for a behind-the-scenes campaign strategist. She won the only dedicated award in that profession that I'm aware of, which is the Campaigns & Elections Magazine Rising Star award. She was also called a "Name to know" by Politico, as well as numerous other descriptors referred to in the article. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than adequately sourced to establish wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is actually pretty well sourced - shouldn't be tagged with "ref improve" IMO either. I fail to see how this was actually a legitimate candidate for "AFD"??? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep obviously notable, well-sourced bio - it might need some clean-up, but not even severe enough that really warrants a tag. The current tags are unnecessary. Kingsif (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with extreme prejudice. Was a WP:BEFORE even attempted here? The subject of the article is covered by several WP:INDEPTH articles!!! XavierItzm (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Gaikwad[edit]

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

Previously deleted page of someone who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and which is blatantly promotional. Templates visible at the time aside, this does not appear to be created thru AfC. Review of the links show the same press releases from his agency spammed to multiple sources. JamesG5 (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me for undeletion page, gaurav Gaikwad. @JamesG5:

Amolshinde143 (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the multiple cites, these are almost all spammed press-released and some sources of, at best, extremely questionable reliability. No evidence of actually passing GNG. Hug^syrup 08:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing substantial to support WP:GNG. A Google search returns with few PR and spam articles. Not notable to have a page. The9Man | (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another article in the spate of fake news blackhat SEO sites trying to inflate the importance of their clients. Not a single one of these sources are reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I agree with Praxidicae. I couldnt find any reliable source mentioning he subject. All are PRs. Just for example this rajsthan times, and this asianage article are PR. Subject lacks notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles fails in our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is only one sentence long and does nothing to demonstrate the subject's notability.TH1980 (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaritaville Resort Orlando[edit]

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

From the text, we are supposed to believe that this is a new resort located in Florida being built on the grounds of an abandoned former resort in Guandung. Presumably this was modified from some other article, so it may not be actually a hoax. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. I don't understand why this was nominated. The Margaritaville resort is part of Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville chain. It's not a proposed site but a fully operational resort of several hundred acres. You can book a room or read reviews at any number of sites. There are dozens of articles about it. Apparently nom did not even do a basic Google search. Even The Daily Telegraph has a review. [28][29],[30],[31],[32],[33] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guandung resort was a sister to the defunct Orlando site, which is now this. Writing is confusing, but WP:N is legit for this current-day operating entity. Nate • (chatter) 15:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point West Corporate Plaza[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable office complex. Sources provided are almost all primary (announcement by real estate group of sale, local news announcing purchase, official website) except one directory listing. No substantial coverage located on search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--89.206.114.25 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBUILD, although striking in appearance, this 1981 complex (not 2000s as suggested by the article, a bit of promo anyone?) does not have the wikisignificance (lack of sources/awards found) to warrant an article. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Township Rollers FC season[edit]

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

Looking at the article, it's seems like this wouldn't really be notable enough to have it's own article here on the Wiki. This is because the page fails WP:NSEASONS as the Botswana Premier League is not a professional league.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason.

HawkAussie (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFOOTY Botswana has no professional leagues, and there is not enough GNG to warrant individual season pages for this FC. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify to AFC. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 14:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signifyd[edit]

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

Non notable company with sources that do not establish notability. Article in its current state only promotes the company. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify through AfC/~~Delete~~ The eWEEK profile is a fairly in-depth profile of this company and may qualify as one (1) source, though I do have my doubts because of the way in which the profile was written. Likewise, the Inc. article is a similarly in-depth article about the company and its products. It's at least, conceivable, this company could pass WP:GNG, though I have strong doubts that it would. Nevertheless, there just isn't likely enough significant coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Thus, it's a WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH fail. That being said, because it's not the worst of the corporate spam, I've seen, I would be supportive of allowing draftification of this article into non-indexed Draft: namespace and have it go through AfC to provide for a more thorough evaluation. Doug Mehus T·C 05:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I too like the idea of sending this to AfC. The vast majority of the subject's coverage is WP:ROUTINE or from not fully reliable sources. However, there are some mentions in reliable sources that are in that awkward grey area between trivial and significant. Pushing this to AfC can put the burden wholly on the page creator to prove neutrality and notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, Yes, I personally wish we'd use AfC both at AfD and DRV more often. How come no bolded !vote, though? ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 06:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, Done Sulfurboy (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, No worries. Doug Mehus T·C 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify through AfC per Doug Mehus !vote rationale. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify through AfC per Doug Mehus.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, It's nice to have concurrence from you; I know you and I have disagreed at AfD in the past...a Kansas City Blue Cross Blue Shield Association AfD as I recall. Doug Mehus T·C 01:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Junction, Arizona[edit]

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

All are road or railroad junctions, not populated places. GNIS failures similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robinson Trail Crossing, Arizona. [34]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 05:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Contrary to nom's claim, all are recognized as populated places by the USGS (per source on each page) and thus would pass WP:NGEO Delete Per nom, after finding out about the unreliability of GNIS Sulfurboy (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy, Please don't repeat others' nonsense: listing in the GNIS is NOT necessarily an accurate assertion that a location is a populated place, and even then is NOT an automatic guarantor of notability. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington (industrial rail spurs incorrecly labeled as "populated places" and sadly repeated elsewhere) and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc, etc, etc. These are accurately classified as locales in the USGS's National Gazetteer. The GNIS is a database of names on maps ("This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject."), not legal recognition or mandates for separate articles. Reywas92^Talk 07:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. No evidence any are/were populated places of any kind. Three are named road junctions. Litchfield Junction was a rail junction of a two-mile industrial spur to Litchfield Park. Benson Junction may have had a building at one time as a railroad station. Corta Junction was where a 3 mile-long spur left the El Paso and Southwestern Railroad to serve the mine in Lowell, Arizona. More mis-categorizations in GNIS. MB 06:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Satellite shows there is absolutely nothing there. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia, I'm curious about the use of satellite images for notability, so I started a section over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic_features)#Satellite_images Cxbrx (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rocky Junction. Trivial mention of the junction in https://newspapers.com with no mention of a population. Post Office not found. Cxbrx (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rosemont Junction A USGS paper says that "at present" (whenever that was, either 1933 or 1994?) there was a house at Rosemont Junction and the remains of a poured foundation. The record of 1 or 2 houses does not make for notable, non-trivial coverage. https://newspapers.com has some hits, including a dog lost at the picnic tables at Rosemont Junction. Cxbrx (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Litchfield Junction. Trivial mention of the junction in https://newspapers.com with no mention of a population. Post Office not found. Cxbrx (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Benson Junction. https://newspapers.com has mentions of Benson Junction in the context of the railway (track abandonment) with no mention of a population. No Post Office. Cxbrx (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kinney Junction. https://newspapers.com had only 5 mentions of '"Kinney Junction" Arizona'. No Post Office. Cxbrx (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, of the five search results, two do not mention "Kinney Junction" at all; two are copies of the same classified ad that uses Kinney Junction as a landmark (20 miles away); and the lone bonafide newspaper article only mentions it in passing as a landmark. –dlthewave ☎ 04:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corta Junction. https://newspapers.com had 0 mentions of '"Corta Junction" Arizona'. No Post Office, though there is a mention of a postal route. Arizona Place Names says that it is a station for loading firewood. Cxbrx (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - These are all non-notable erroneous GNIS entries. In the few instances where they're actually mentioned in reliable sources, they're only used as landmarks. –dlthewave ☎ 04:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable under WP:GEOLAND. PenulisHantu (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 08:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Relief Wing Kerala[edit]

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

Non notable charitable NGO managed by the Jamaat-e-Islami Kerala chapter. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 05:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article did not pass our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New England Treatment Access[edit]

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

No indication of notability (WP:NCORP) for this particular dispensary. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable secondary sources from newspapers like NY Times and Boston Business Journal can be found and they both clearly state the store's notability in their articles. WikiAviator (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LOCAL looks to be the case here. Not really seeing significant coverage outside of Boston. The NYTimes article referenced above by WikiAviator (I'm assuming this one) just briefly mentions the subject in passing.
Delete Nothing seems notable about the company in the article. As everything is trivial. Let alone does there seem to be any reliable sources about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing a substantial amount of coverage. Dorama285 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logidots[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:NCORP Sulfurboy (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only one notable source could be found (Economist Rise) which is advertising the company. WikiAviator (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH PenulisHantu (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article, few sources available. Dorama285 14:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are finding primary coverage such as a Q&A with the company founder, plus mentions of this firm as an IT employer in Kerala, but neither these nor the inclusion in a list of Kerala-based start-ups provide the in-depth coverage about the company required to demonstrate WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CatcherStorm ^talk 06:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kapralova society journal[edit]

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

Unremarkable publication, no claim of significance, references don't indicate significance either CatcherStorm ^talk 03:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as no sources support its significance. Fails WP:GNG. WikiAviator (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I retract my vote per recent improvements made by users.WikiAviator (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD.WikiAviator (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's reviewed in Notes, Vol. 68, No. 1 (September 2011), JSTOR 23012882; the Open Music Libray lists it, too. Many music departments in universities list it on their resources page. Google Scholar shows ~60 citations. Wikipedia itself cites it at least 16 times. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It's a low quality article that reads more like an advert and needs a complete rewrite. I also question why the journal is notable enough for an article but we don't have one for the publishing society itself. I'd prefer to see Kapralova Society, with a section on the journal. Sixty citations on Google Scholar isn't very much at all and I struggle to see it clearly meeting the criteria in the (essay) WP:JOURNALCRIT. However, despite all this it seems to cross the threshold of notability as despite the relatively low number of citations, those citing it are high quality sources themselves (e.g., Journal of Vocational Behavior). QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per QuiteUnusual, but Move to Kapralova Society Journal (ie get the caps right - but don't move during AfD). Failing that, Merge to Vítězslava Kaprálová as part of her legacy, but it does seem to have a much wider scope. PamD 09:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up a bit, fixed the refs, and trimmed the huge list of articles to three examples with links to online. PamD 09:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice set of edits, vast improvement, thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent improvements made by PamD. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to User:PamD. It should be moved to the correct spelling however once the AfD is closed. IphisOfCrete (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would be a much better fit at the society article, but it's good enough for now given the two reviews focusing on the journal. Merging would still be the best option though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the WP:BLP1E arguments have not been substantially contested and there is also the WP:NOTNEWS point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bampumim Teixeira[edit]

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

As clear-cut a case of BLP1E as ever there was. JBL (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clear case of a notable person, first plays into the mansion homicide type like the 2015 Washington, D.C., quadruple murder incident and the 2018 Colts Neck mansion killings. The case was still ongoing and the perp was acting up and yelling during his trial. Also the case was quite international with sources from BBC to CNN. 11S117 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per nom, this is clear cut WP:ONEEVENT Sulfurboy (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not Murderpedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep per WP:SUSTAINED. BonkHindrance (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BonkHindrance, How is this sustained if every news story sourced was within one week and all about WP:ONEEVENT? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about, it was still getting talked about in December of last year. 11S117 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, reports of murders/arrest of Teixeira in 2017, trial held and found guilty in 2019, this is not sustained coverage but rather news outlets doing their jobs of covering a tragic crime. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dragon Ball Z home video releases. Clear consensus for getting rid of the article, but not clear if in favour of deletion or redirecting. As no specific reason for deletion over redirect was proffered (the copyright concerns were resolved during the discussion), redirection it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z: The World of Dragon Ball Z[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any evidence that this meets GNG. Provided sources are unreliable (IMDb and a wiki), and searching the internet as well as likely review hubs (IGN, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic) turned up nothing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support lack of RS coverage for that individual work, consider merge with Dragon Ball Z. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to List of Dragon Ball Z home video releases and mention which home media video sets have this bonus video. It's kind of like those behind the scenes videos you find as DVD extras. But it doesn't really stand as a notable video short so I wouldn't mind it being deleted either.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly no sentiment so far for keeping as a separate article, but it would help to have further input on whether there is anything worth merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's actually G12. Copyright violation of https://dragonball.fandom.com/wiki/The_World_of_Dragon_Ball_Z. I've blanked the page. I'm unsure if requesting a CSD is appropriate or not in the middle of an AfD. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Blanking articles are not allowed for AfDs. (See banner on article) WikiAviator (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't find any rule that addressed the situation if it was a copyvio so I just rolled with WP:IGNORE. Imho, blanking obvious copyright infringements should trump most, if not all rules. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Foremost, this is not a copyright violation as the content in the website you suggested (i.e. Fandom) is released in form of CC by SA, which means remixing and distribution is okay as long as you attribute the user (see Creative Commons license). Therefore, blanking isn't appropriate in this case. Also, WP:IGNORE is quite controversial as WP doesn't have specific rules, but rather policies, which makes this IGNORE policy unnecessary. Please self-revert your changes to the latest revision created before your blanking. Thanks and I appreciate your help.--WikiAviator (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment Content has been restored. Nate • (chatter) 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG and no RS found. WikiAviator (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm afraid this is another "It's notable per WP:NCRIC" "No it isn't" debates. Until we can revise the guidelines, this situation will remain. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tipton[edit]

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

Reads like a CV, being used for self promotion and is almost completely unsourced. Cricket career is not notable. BobKhannaDentistOfTheYear (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a terrible article and is everything a WP:BLP shouldn't be: no inline citations, full of puffery, CV-like, making no attempt to present a balanced view of the subject. There are some external links but all these are primary sources except the cricket statistics one (which is hidden behind a paywall). If ever there was a case of WP:TNT, I think this is it. The subject might, possibly, be notable (though my searches for independent coverage just found a sea of self-promotion). However this article in its present form is irredeemable and should go. Neiltonks (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in theory I'd generally propose a merge to List of Cheshire County Cricket Club List A players, but a) no article exists and b) this is an odd article and he might be notable under whatever the academic notability criteria are. In theory his two List A cricket matches make him notable under NCRIC - and there's certainly a very strong argument that we know a lot more about him than we do someone such as Michael Balac (a recent AfD keep) and that he's a lot more notable than Balac. Personally I disagree with the interpretation of NCRIC as it tends to be applied, but there you go: from that perspective I would argue that his 50-odd minor counties appearances for Cheshire and 35 or so second XI appearances are much more likely to show notability than his two List A ones, but I'm sure that others will argue differently.

Clearly the article needs to be gutted and totally re-written if it were to be kept and I can appreciate that there is a major self-promotion issue in the sources that do exist. I'd appreciate input from someone with more experience in the academic notability field as I think that's actually where the question of his notability is likely to rest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-this is a promotional CV, and the reliable secondary sources that would demonstrate notability aren't there. Technically meeting the very low bar of WP:NCRIC is immaterial, what's necessary is meeting WP:GNG, and that's where this puff piece fails. Reyk _YO! 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:CRIN. I've kept the information on his cricket, which is notable as he has played matches at List A level in the English domestic one-day cup (the highest level of one-day cricket in England), and removed the rest which was self-promotion. StickyWicket (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a pretty strong argument that Tipton would be notable for his work within dentistry, irrespective of his former life as a cricketer. Brought together, he clearly meets the requirements of WP:GNG in my opinion. Harrias ^talk 09:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know anything about cricket so I don't know if he's "played at the highest international or domestic level" as required by WP:NCRIC. However, there's nothing that shows he meets any other notability standard. The Denistry.co.uk articles certainly don't meet the GNG. In one his name appears on a list and the other (on the training certification) has all the appearance of being a submitted promotional puff piece. Phrases like "in addition to the valuable skills" and the article being almost entirely quotes from Tipton employees and Tipton himself do not make this look like there's serious editorial review and independent overview.Sandals1 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS. BonkHindrance (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even after a complete overhaul of the article, I'm seeing nothing but incidental mentions plus the usual statistics from cricketarchive. There is nothing from wider media sources – so fails to meet WP:GNG. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 16:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The state of the article is irrelevant as AFD is not cleanup.
Keep passes WP:NCRIC played matches at List A level, and WP:GNG with his expert status in dentistry. Lightburst (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Sim[edit]

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

Almost all sources are primary, this is an orphaned stub, and I'm unsure it meets the notability guidelines. King of Scorpions (my talk) 21:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deleted and recreated multiple times, so getting a consensus seems more appropriate than a WP:SOFTDELETE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a lowkey advert and no indication that this comes close to meeting WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does get mentioned in one paper, which a WP:BEFORE should have turned up.[36] Nevertheless this is not enough to establish notability. The paper uses it as a comparison, just an example of simulation software. That is about it though, so not notable for its own page. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTCHANGELOG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. A. Mehler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Survived AfD in 2006 but essentially a promotional article. Mccapra (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is full of extraordinary claims with virtually no sourcing. Article would have to be wholly re-written to meet minimum standards and since nothings really be done since it scrapped by AfD 14 years ago, it's hard to imagine that's going to happen. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has exceptional claims, but not a single unexceptional reference, never mind an exceptional one. It may have survived 14 years ago, it doesn't show 14 years worth of improvement. - X201 (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not that Amazon is the indicator, but a google search yielded little but an Amazon result. On there, it appears the figure has self-published several books, including one on how to write a best seller.. but no actual best sellers from what I can tell. So this appears to be a hoax. User:Literat24-7 added many of the claims (and has made no other edits), and other than the original creator (who has also made no edits in relation to Mehler), no other users added any information. Am I saying they are both related to the subject? Am I saying they are the same person? Am I saying they are both Mehler? No, but it wouldn't surprise me. Just as importantly, none of the claims are verified. Strong Delete. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a prolific author, Mehler does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fourteen years should have been enough to provide a reference. Dorama285 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=5cRvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=shahra+razavi&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjstKy07N7nAhXNhXIEHdqPAmk4FBDoATAGegQIBxAC#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false

[2] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=v8tPlht9lyAC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT83&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PT83#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false

[3] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=w6ROBAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA17&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false

[4] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=dg0ABwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA445&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA445#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false

[5] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=5cRvAAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA178&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false

[6] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=ovbVLZ2G6pMC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA251&dq=shahra%20razavi&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q=shahra%20razavi&f=false

[7] ttps://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-no96039545

[8] ttps://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n98080203

[9] In the Special issue: International comparison of care, accessed 23 February 2020, pdf ISSN 1344-3062 (in Japanese).

[10] Contribution by Japanese researchers around Ravazi's article, ISSN 1344-3062 (in Japanese).

[11] Emiko Ochiai; Leo Aoi Hosoya. "Transformation of the intimate and the public in Asian modernity", translated from Japanese; OCLC 984803155.

[12] ttps://indianexpress.com/elections/gujarat-assembly-elections-2017/gujarat-elections-why-vaghela-has-no-candidate-in-seat-that-elected-him-4968234/

[13] ttps://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/vaghela-modis-brother-keep-congress-bjp-on-tenterhooks-in-gujarat/article9699892.ece

[14] ttps://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/gauri-lankesh-murder-bjp-defends-pm-modi-says-following-someone-on-social-media-not-character-certificate/846293/

[15] ttps://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/vaghela-leads-3rd-front-in-gujarat/article9865142.ece

[16] ttps://www.scoopwhoop.com/how-bjp-it-cell-chief-justified-modi-following-twitter-trolls-rejoicing-gauri-lankeshs-murder/

[17] ttps://www.counterview.net/2016/11/54-facebook-users-support-bjp-to-rule.html

[18] ttp://partheshpatel.com

[19] ttps://www.counterview.net/2016/11/54-facebook-users-support-bjp-to-rule.html

[20] ttps://absoluteindianews.com/archives/18542

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[※ 1]

[※ 2]

[※ 3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]