Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 February	22 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Analog Horror, (Communicate) 23:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special Reserve (Gaelic Storm album)[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The only source is from Allmusic, and the article does not explain how the album is notable. I also tried searching for the album, but most of the results are from Amazon or Discogs. It fails WP:GNG. From Analog Horror, (Communicate) 23:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NEVERMIND I WITHDRAW

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae Diță[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a footballer who played in the Romanian first division, I've added two more sources to it, it has a total of five good sources, including three from Romanian newspapers... I don't see why it should be deleted User:Sebi1990 User_talk:Sebi1990 —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets NFOOTBALL, and likely GNG. Giant Snowman 11:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How doesn't this meet NFootball? Nomination statement is false. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom x[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. No references provided to back up claims made in article. Cannot find any SIGCOV. Rogermx (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, no useable sources found that contributes to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there to back up the claims, especially the claims of it being the first self-published book to hit the mystery novel bestseller lists on the named sites. Besides, these are not notable bestseller lists, as they're hard to verify and change pretty quickly. There's also an issue with people getting their way on these lists because they purchased their own copies or because they listed it during the time when books offered for free could place on the main bestseller list instead of the free bestseller list Amazon created specifically for them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:51, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

River Cities Speedway[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No SIGCOV. Article is strictly promotional Rogermx (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Subject is insignificant and only primary sources are available on the topic. Ajf773 (talk) 08:59, 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 Delete. If the article's creator or anyone else wants a copy for some reason, let me know. I'll be happy to userfy it.. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Belgian families[edit]

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

We don't have any similar article (list...?) for another country. Setting aside that more than half of the entries here are not referenced, I don't see how this topic passes GNG or LISTN. Some families are notable, but listing them by oldest recorded date seems trivial, just like Foo families by region or so on would be. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned in the article, most entries do not have a source because they all come from the same book, which itself is very well sourced. They are also published on the website of the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium. The ones not included in either of those places are all sourced independently. I believe that this list being included in a book of national importance as well as on the website of a renowned institution in Belgium is enough to pas the General notability guideline. I am not sure what LISTN is so cannot comment on that. I am all for creating such lists for other countries if reliable sources back them. --Brookford (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I would understand that the format of this article would need to be re-organised, I simply took the same format as the French article, which may not be appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Also maybe the title needs to be changed to: "Chronological list of Belgian families"--Brookford (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely incomplete and subjective list. First entry, "de belgique", leads to the article Monarchy of Belgium, with a family who only entered what is now Belgium in 1831, they come from Germany before this. Second entry; House of Limburg-Stirum, " which adopted its name in the 12th century from the sovereign county of Limburg an der Lenne in what is now Germany" They entered "Belgium" in 1068? No idea where that comes from, House of Limburg-Stirum doesn't mention that year. Third entry, House of Arenberg? "who took their name from Arenberg, a small territory of the Holy Roman Empire in the Eifel region", again Germany. On the other hand, there are 1000s of families who can trace their roots back to the 18th century, most genealogies which are created go back at least as far and show some members of the family to be in present-day Belgium in the 1700s. And that's even only taking into account the rather outdated idea of a "family" being father-to-son only, e.g. there are many descendants of Peter Paul Rubens alive today, but all through female lines, so no "real" Rubens is alive and they are missing from this list. Even when people and families are well-known and old, they are missing, e.g. Moretus has living direct male descendants. Of course, they are not nobility, unlike most or all of this list, which seems to be maintained by a rather snobbish group (not the editors here, the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium). Fram (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is incomplete and subjective in that it only lists entries that can be sourced... Regarding your point on some of these families not having Belgian origins, first of all Belgium didn't exist until 1830, and second of all, the article states that it includes families that were Belgian during the 20th century, I will admit that it should be extended to the 21st century too. Yes it is true that many families can trace their ancestry to the 18th century, but in this case, as in all Wikipedia, it needs to be properly sourced by secondary sources. Regarding the concept of a family, that is certainly a debate to be had but until then I believe that the notion that has been used in most of the world for most of recorded history should be used. --Brookford (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you saying that families can't be Belgian if they only entered Belgium a year after its creation? Which brings another question, are you saying immigrants and their descendants cannot be of the nationality of their host country?--Brookford (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Moretus family whose ommition you claim to be because of snobbery from the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium, you will be happy to know that it is listed in the book and on the website under the date 1539... --Brookford (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that "oldest Belgian families" is rather meaningless if you include any family which lives now in Belgium, but didn't live here at the time stated in the article. The absence of e.g. any of the oldest Antwerp Jewish families, which often have published genealogies going back many centuries, is remarkable as well. And thanks for adding Moretus, but the 1539 date is wrong, as that is the year the eldest child (brother of Jan Moretus) was born, but we have the marriage contract of his father, dated to 1537. This is easily findable, so if whoever wrote that book doesn't even know this, then the reliability of that source is dubious[1]. Fram (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion but I do not think it is meaningless. You are more than welcome to contribute to this list with reliable sources. I do not know if the families you speak of are included in the book or website. You can check yourself here. The fact that "whoever wrote that book doesn't even know" that a specific family has another documented proof 2 years earlier does not make this source dubious. I am not familiar with this specific case but maybe there is no link between the marriage certificate and the rest of the family. Thus it may not be definitively proven that the family alive today is linked to that certificate. Even if it can this isn't making the case against the existence of this article. --Brookford (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the marriage certificate is for the father of Jan Moretus, and is kept at the Plantin-Moretus archives, so it seems well proven... But let's look at another example from the list. "1639: Goethals". What an utterly meaningless entry. There is also a "1550: Goethals de Mude de Nieuwland". Now, one can easily dispute the oldest entries in this book on that family[2], but the Biographical Index of the Benelux at least agrees with entries dating to 1217 for the Goethals Mude family[3]. Basically, the list is a minor subset of families, heavily slanted towards nobility, and is obviously incorrect. Fram (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think Houtart suggests a relationship with the old Goethals de Mude family, on the contrary: the current Goethals family of which ancestors never were lords of Mude and Nieuwland and their addition to their family name in 1967 to Goethals de Mude de Nieuwland is based on the arms of the old family, not on a relationship, according to Houtart, so more an usurpation of arms and family name. Houtart dates the current family back not later than 1550, and so I am not sure that you are right in your assumptions. Paul Brussel (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that entries like "1639 : Goethals" are utterly useless and meaningless. There are many "Goethals" families in Belgium, and one of them, according to one source, can be traced back to 1639, perhaps, if that source is right. For another family, "Goethals de Mude", this source claims 1550, other (also reliable) sources go back a lot further. The page up for deletion is presenting one source, which is contradicted by others, as if it is "the truth", and presents the information (by necessity) in a format which gives the readers no context, no background, to judge even what is being discussed here (Goethals? Is that the family of Christian Goethals, Henry Goethals (born ca. 1217!), Lucien Goethals, Raymond Goethals, ...? Presumably it is the "noble" family from Kortijk (because, let's face it, you can't be an old Belgian family without being nobility of course), which dates apparently to 1638, not 1639[4]? Looking at e.g; 1383: Della Faille, I can't find any sources confirming this date, and the very exhaustive published genealogy of the family finds no one before ca. 1400, and no definite dates before 1448 apparently[5] Entry 1587: van den Berg, is another example of a completely random name / date combination, not giving any useful information to readers. Fram (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Comment -- We cannot retain the article under this name. Every family is in fact old. When the 14th Earl of Home renounced his peerage to become British Prime Minister the quip was made that his opponent was the 14th Mr Wilson, though nobody would have traced who the first was or how many generations had had the surname. What is involved here is families with the longest traceable genealogy. Basically this is families recorded in a certain genealogical dictionary, I am not sure that is an adequate basis for a WP article. I recall a discussion many years ago about a British book listing the greatest landowners in Britain in about 1870, a book which when published was a pioneering piece of research; we deleted it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the constructive comment. What would you suggest renaming it? I was thinking of “chronological list of Belgian families” or “chronological list of families of Belgium”. Any other ideas? Brookford (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC) EDIT:You said that "this is families recorded in a certain genealogical dictionary", but that was only the start of the article, but quite a few entries do not come from that book and all genealogical books and studies are welcomed additions to the list. --Brookford (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot pass WP:LISTN since the only source for most of this information is WP:PRIMARY and there is not evidence of reliable coverage in secondary sources or independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, it is mainly based on a secondary source, which itself uses primary sources.Brookford (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking information and slapping it into a new format does not convert sourcing from primary to secondary. A secondary source is characterized by editorial and authorial activity such as transformation, commenting, evaluation, synthesis, analysis, or other such activities, none of which are evident in the source given here. In context, this is still a primary source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of what makes a source secondary. This book didn't just take information and "slap" it into a new format. It was an extensive research project with a lot of source analysis involved. As my discussion above showed, it is not just taking the earliest mention of a family, the links between all these records have been extensively researched, analysed and assessed. It is also very conservative in its process. What evidence do you have to say that it doesn't meet all the criteria you listed? --Brookford (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ritchie333 closed this as "no consensus" but at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 14 there is a consensus that this discussion was defective due to off-point comments; so relisting for further debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm usually a fan of such articles but I cannot see how the sources support it. A lot of the references are just explanations, but if you actually look at the others, they all come from the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium, which has a very specialized interest in this area. Other sources are self-published genealogy websites. Lists of political families or noble families make sense, a list of families with no social distinction doesn't make sense. This is essentially a list of people we have records of. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—Мандичка, I agree that neither this article/list nor its sources are perfect, but do you really think it should be deleted rather than improved?--Brookford (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somewhat per Wikimadia; the sourcing indicates no particular notability about this family other than that it is verified to have existed but with no long-term impact. ——SN 54129 06:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the subject of the article/list was what was required to pass a test of notability, not every thing - in this case families - mentioned in it?--Brookford (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brookford, just to clarify: this article is going to be deleted, and you are currently WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. It is unnecessary. Many thanks. ——SN 54129 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this WP guideline, and can see how my actions appear to be similar to it. I will thus stop commenting on this page, even if I believed I was encouraging deeper conversations on the issue.--Brookford (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium does not really form a sufficient basis for establishing notability of this topic.--Staberinde (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The study of this topic is also the subject of Jean-François Houtart's book Anciennes Familles de Belgique. --Brookford (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. given the wo books, and not challenge to their reliability ,there is no reason to delete. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I have challenged the reliability of the one book (not two) quite extensively above. The book seems to be a rather random collection, with equally random (i.e. often wrong) starting dates, and using a very old-fashioned definition of "family". Fram (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given that the list is sourced to two published books, I don't see that there is any valid policy based reasoning for deletion. Calling these sources primary sources is a bit of stretch as we generally trust government generated content. 4meter4 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG and 4meter4:, what 2 books? The Houtart book is the same as the list on the website of the Genealogical and Heraldic Office of Belgium, and I don't see which other book you are referring to. Fram (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I won't be accused of bludgeoning for this, but maybe 4meter4 was referring to Félix-Victor Goethals's book: Miroir des notabilités nobiliaires de Belgique as well as publications by the scgd and the anrb which are all in the bibliography. (I know two of those are nobility-related which you won't like) Btw your comment on DGG's post is a challenge to a source not to the validity of the article itself. --Brookford (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGGs comment was about the reliability of the book(s), so my reply was indeed a challenge to the source as well. Obviously, if your main source is not reliable, then the article may have issues as well (since the article is not about that source, but a summary of that source). I don't think using a mid-19th century book for a list like this is a good idea, the validity of such sources is by now very dubious (both wrt exaggerated claims, and with very incomplete research). And that book doesn't really concern itself with a chronological list of oldest Belgian families, it just gives an akphabetical list of noble families (with lots of information). Fram (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Houtart (2008) is in Belgium generally considered to be a notable and reliable source (but of course for some of the hundreds of families it may include mistakes). He is complemented by a series of articles by the notable genealogist Hervé Douxchamps, 'Les quarante famille belges les plus anciennes subsistantes', in: Le Parchemin, lastly in number 444 (Novembre-Décembre 2019). However, some family entries were not based on those but on outdated sources like Goethals and some of them I have corrected today. Also, Houtart doesn't list extinct families. Paul Brussel (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't have much to add to the arguments of Fram and Wikimanida. Absent a secondary source defining the topic's boundaries and giving its some depth, I don't see how this article is possible. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 4 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guruji Maharaj[edit]

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

Previous WP:PROD was contested by page creator. Unambiguous violation of WP:NOTPROMO. Opinion pieces about non-notable religious figures do not belong on Wikipedia. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that I've cleaned up all the references to Wikipedia, Britannica, etc. the article is not actually that bad as an article about a minor religious figure, except that it doesn't have any references to independent sources for verifiability, let alone notability. If the creator could provide some news articles about Guruji Maharaj, that would help.Jahaza (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are completely unreliable and not independent such as organization websites, Wikipedia and Wiki-clone sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's kind of irritating to see someone say that the sourcing includes Wikipedia when I spent a whole bunch of time removing all the "citations" to Wikipedia.Jahaza (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that I mistook Reference 1 as a link to another Wikipedia article. I now realize that Reference 1, which is cited 4 times, is a link to a section of this very article about and citing a work written by the article's subject. The other sources are still not-reliable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, was annoyed for non-wikipedia reasons when I wrote that comment.Jahaza (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jahaza no worries. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and looks similar to this Afd. Abishe (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:SIGCOV; basing a bio on primary sources is akin to WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winstars Technology[edit]

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

Every reference fails verification. Website doesn't exist. The creator of the article has also written a draft Draft:Winstars Technology Limited - the same company name, but gives it a totally different description. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article did not pass our notability guideline.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't imagine why a statement like "Establishment and installation of unified networks" is sourced to a review of a planetarium application, but it is. "commercial IPv6 beta deployment" is sourced to an article that mentions a company called Winstar Display Co., Ltd. that manufactures displays. The sources don't just fail verification; they don't even remotely have anything to do with the subject. Vexations (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a run of the mill company; article lacks reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 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 delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astral dreadnought[edit]

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

Formerly deleted, and then restored and continuously reverted back and forth over many years. This still fails to establish notability. On all important points, it is no better off than it was in 2008, so this AfD is an act of pointless bureaucracy. If the outcome is delete and redirect or redirect, the redirect should be protected after. TTN (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Salt to prevent recreation. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another previously deleted D&D article that was restored without consensus by an IP. Coverage of this creature outside of primary sources is trivial, and provides no real information outside of affirming that it exists. Fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of SIGCOV in RS Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous AfD, the article's subject still has no real-world notability. Not a very active user (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD cruft that fails at NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 28 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. The only sources are primary. TTN (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another D&D article that was already deleted at an AFD, and then restored by an IP user without consensus. While the current article may be substantially different than the one that one initially deleted, it is still a complete failure of the WP:GNG, considering that the only sources are non-independent game material. Rorshacma (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article fails GNG, being sourced entirely to primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG Chetsford (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous AfD. The sourcing in the article hasn't improved at all. Not a very active user (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DnD cruft that fails at NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 28 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) 21:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother (British series 6) housemates[edit]

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

A massive list of unsourced cruft about non notable individuals. If nothing else the vast amount of unsourced information on living people is worthy of wp:tnt. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly non-encyclopaedic; these people's fame was overwhelmingly fleeting and mainly reported about in non-RS. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made when WP was lax about sourcing. Unlikely to be enough reliable sources available to satisfy all the potential BLP problems. Mattg82 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. The other similar lists need serious pruning, or better still, deletion too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unencyclopedic profiling of mostly non-notable persons. There are lists for all 19 seasons so it's appropriate we should address theses as well Category:Big Brother (British TV series) contestants. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Apprentice candidates (British series 1) so I'll just copy my response form there. The additional details on each person is their personal bio unrelated to the show. If these people are notable, they have an article which covers it and this is a WP:CONTENTFORK, if they don't have an article, they aren't notable and this info is just not needed. Anything specific to the show can be added, but should be limited to 1-2 sentences, similar to how non-reality TV shows or films summarize a character. There is definitely no need for any "play-by-play" re-cap of what he did on the show. These articles are a plague which I've noticed for a while now, and I'm glad someone else brought it up. A few additional notes. I don't understand why the season 6 article was singled out as all 19 should be handled together. Either all can be deleted or none can. Second, for any people afraid of the loss of the member list, List of Big Brother (British TV series) housemates can handle a table for that (if it's wanted). --Gonnym (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Consists of listcruft that does not satisfy list notability and has no other purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my wider nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (British series 19) housemates. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medeline[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable French band, I can't find any RS for this topic that are about this band, so fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. DISCLAIMER - My foreign-language ability is limited, so maybe I missed something. Hog Farm (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much in French either. It seems that Medeline is a pseudonym used by producer Rémi Tobbal for some of the work he has released in the past with a collaborator, Steve Fraschini. But I'm not even sure Tobbal would be notable under his real name, as there is very little on him out there (and he does not have an article on the French WP). His side project barely registers any coverage that is not routine; they seem to have released one album in 2006 consisting largely of remixes, and for which I cannot find any reviews. I really don't see how this could be notable. Xuxl (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced BLP's should be deleted after a before search. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Stryx[edit]

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

a search of billboards charts gives no results and in fact the only places that report "her last album reaching billboard top 100" are blatantly fake black hat SEO sites and a press release that is remarkably similar to said fake sites, published on IBTimes.

The only sources I can find that even discuss Stryx are, well, fake. Praxidicae (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There does seem to be some coverage about her: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. So even if the Billboard 1000 claim is not verified, she appears to be a notable artist. Xuxl (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
those are exactly the sources I’m referring to as black hat SEO. They’re all pulled from a self published press release. She never once charted. Praxidicae (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps the too soon standard is the charitable way to put this. Iris Stryx has appeared in the sources listed by the "Keep" voter above, but a little investigation reveals that they are paid promo services pretending to be news outlets, and the prose is uniformly promotional and non-critical. Those and a lot of other outlets are describing her as a Billboard Hot 100 artist but Billboard itself is not. Good luck to her as she gets started but Wikipedia is not a promotional service. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources in the article, and far too soon. The sources linked above are not reliable, either. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mau Mau (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Fourteen years without a single reference. Checking their website listed in the article, nothing is posted under the "news" tab. The single-purpose account that created the article must have written everything based on WP:ORIGINAL. Dorama285 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Much improved with the addition of six references Dorama285 17:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability, and no evidence that this subject passes WP:MUSICBIO. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll admit that I didn't do much investigation on this article. With the information that has been brought to light, it appears that notability is met, even if it was never mentioned or implied to in version of the article that was nominated for deletion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. There are several books in English that refer to Mau Mau as an important band.
- Critical Studies: Music, Popular Culture, Identities by Richard Young, Brill/Rodopi (2002): "Sud Sound System (Salerno), Africa Unite, Mau Mau (Turin)... are some of the most prominent groups in the Italian alternative/antagonistic scene."
- Global Noise: Rap and Hip Hop Outside the USA by Roger Chamberland, Wesleyan University Press: "The first Italian rap performances in English... quickly gave way in the early 1990s to the use of standard Italian, and then regional dialects, by individual rappers and crews. These included... Mau Mau (Turin)... many of whom were associated both with what was referred to as 'Mediterranean reggae' as well as the centri sociali."
- Reggae and Hip Hop in Southern Italy: Politics, Languages, and Multiple Minorities by Suzanna Scarparo and Mathias Stevenson, Palgrave/Macmillan (2018)

These are all brief mentions, but they all say that Mau Mau was an important part of a historically relevant music scene in Southern Italy. Given that, I think it's safe to assume that more detailed sources exist in Italian. I believe this goes some way toward demonstrating notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs above. Also note that they have a lengthy and apparently well-sourced article on the Italian wikipedia. Xuxl (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources above as well as the coverage in the Italian wikipedia article which includes Billboard, La Stampa, and La Repubblica. They also pass criteria 5 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) as they have ten albums released on EMI which is a major record label, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A forgotten neglected bio but they appear notable, I have added further referencing. Mattg82 (talk) 23:35, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Filip[edit]

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

The user who created this page has lot of his other pages deleted, and the subject fails GNG. Angus1986 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Angus1986 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I am going to say keep based on Italian and Dutch wiki pages, just near enough for GNG out there. Govvy (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets NFOOTBALL, and likely GNG. Giant Snowman 11:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per both users above. Also, saying that "The User who created this page has lot of his other pages deleted" is not a valid reason for this page to be deleted. Those deleted pages were for players who had solely appeared in the Russian Professional Football League, and it was determined after discussion that the league did not meet WP:FPL standards. This page (Oliver Filip) is in no way connected to that prior discussion. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played top flight football in Austria, the subject meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFootball. Doesn't seem to be any shortage of sources in the various versions of this article. Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid deletion rationale provided by the nominator, and he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Ann Jenkins[edit]

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

non notable author/creative professional, sourced entirely to hyper local sources and pay-to-publish blackhat sites like voyagela. Searching "Whitney Jenkins" and "Whitney Ann Jenkins" reveal a lot of mentions of people who aren't her and only 2 of her. Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's no evidence of major television or film roles, neither do her recordings show signs of proven success. Insufficient independent significant news coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly an attempt at promotion. She has been mentioned in a few reliable sources but they are always articles about something she merely appeared in. She has one local newspaper mention (currently footnote #13 in the article), but her works in general have not received the necessary level of reliable and significant media coverage. Everything else to be found is the usual industry directories and self-promotional sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was not written for profit nor was it written for promotion. The sources are valid, and No Depression and Ink19 are not local publications, they are national brands independent of promotional content. Also, searching "Whitney Ann Jenkins" on Google brings up many pages that contain information about her. Bodhibear777 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial work in film or other media. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill character actress; paid SPA and possible sockpuppet who should know better in 2020 - I can't assume good faith here. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshi Madushanka[edit]

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

It is either too soon for an article on this actress/model, or it is an attempted promotion. I can find no significant coverage and she only appears in typical film directories and model associations. The article also says she is "award winning" but I can find no evidence of anything she has won or if any such award is notable in itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only imdb refs. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NACTOR/WP:NMODEL - IMDb is not an acceptable or reliable source. No other reliable sources found. Dan arndt (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG Angus1986 (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject only appears to have acted in non-notable productions, so I think she fails WP:NACTOR, and she probably doesn't meet the threshold for WP:GNG either. I'll defer to others on her notability as a model. As for whether she has won awards, she won a best-dressed award at a function, but I hardly think the article could have been referring to that: http://www.hirunews.lk/entertainment/150671/hiruth-ekka-naththal-2016-star-studded-event-that-shone-during-xmas-exclusive-photos. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails WP:GNG. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 18:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an actor she has done multiple films, two of them are having Wikipedia pages as well. However she lacks in the coverage part. What are the possibilities of having the coverage in local language? - The9Man | (talk) 09:15, 28 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Byrnes[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Sources given are either about the companies or they are articles or podcasts by him. ... discospinster _talk 15:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth coverage, few mentions in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 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 delete. After extensive discussion and analysis of sources, there is consensus that there is insufficient coverage of this subject to merit encyclopedic notability. No prejudice against refunding to draft if editors preferring to keep the article believe that additional sources can be found that overcome the deficiencies identified. BD2412 T 22:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anouk Claes[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Two of the cites are self published; the third led nowhere. Note tat there is an academic of the same name who is, in all probability, more notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "second nomination" is a sorta mistake; I tried to nominate a moment ago but Twinkle failed tol follow thru.TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She has written six books:

Warum & Wieso Verlag Allinti, ISBN 978-3-905836-07-3
Müssen war gestern Verlag Allinti, ISBN 9783905836226
Sie & Sie Verlag Allinti, ISBN 978-3-905836-05-9
Durchsichtig: Hellsichtigkeit und wie Sie am besten damit umgehen Verlag Allinti, ISBN 978-3-905836-08-0
Gefühle, Geist und Ego Verlag Allinti, ISBN 978-3-905836-02-8
Angst – Beschützer rund um die Uhr Verlag Allinti, ISBN 978-3-905836-03-5

Publications by and about Anouk Claes in the catalogue Helveticat of the Swiss National Library

She is a bestseller author. [11]

She is famous in Swiss. She was often in German TV. One you can see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18DRIIsVhMY

It is only a translation of German Wikipedia article, which exists already several years. Wega14 (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if she is famous you really should be able to come up with some decent references. A Youtube clip is, to put it very politely, not good enough.TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well in external links there you can find deutschlandfunk.de, Eine Lange Nacht über Krankheit, Heilung und Gesundheit: Befund und Befindlichkeit see also deutschlandfunk

please notice, she is famous in Swiss. Swiss is a different culture. Majority of people in Swiss believe in such things. She is working in Swiss in normal hospitals. There she is has a own room. Please respect, there are different cultures. Wega14 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought of the Swiss as rational.TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. But also police using there such mediums for work. In medicine, they are using such mediums. Company working against corruption with mediums and so on. Some Mediums are big pop stars in Swiss, they are in TV, they can fill big halls with several thousands of people. Wega14 (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. The article cites no substantial coverage in reliable sources. The Deutschlandfunk piece is a passing mention.

Contrary to what Wega14 writes, the Swiss are not significantly more or less likely to believe in paranormal stuff or fringe science than other Western nations, not that this would matter for our purposes.

Claes is covered in the German Wikipedia because their inclusion criteria are less restrictive than ours for authors: basically, anybody who's published two fiction books or four nonfiction books with a regular publisher gets an article (de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien#Autoren). That's not how we measure notability.

Also, as a Swiss person, I can affirm that this author is in no way "famous". She's unknown to me, at least. Sandstein 15:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are from Swiss (well German Swiss part), why don't you watch this here? [12] It is from a big German TV Channel only about Anouk Claes. Who is able to get that? Wega14 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 10 minute Youtube video of what looks like excerpts of one or several old German TV documentaries with an ugly watermark added. We cannot cite that as a source in the article for several reasons (WP:SPS, linking to copyright violations), and we cannot use clips somebody on Youtube stitched together even for notability purposes: we have no way of determining how true this Youtube clip is to its source(s), especially as regards the article subject. We'd need to find a copy of the original film, and some information about its authorship and editorial oversight, etc., and then determine whether it amounts to significant coverage in reliable sources. And I for one am not going to watch 2+ hours of old German TV for that purpose. If this person is notable, there will be coverage of her in written sources. Sandstein 17:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This video is part one of 6 parts. It was a documentary film only about Anouk Claes, made by a big German TV Channel called 3sat. Wega14 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found the video on an original place here [13] . This is the homepage of srf.ch , a big Swiss TV Channel. The title of the documentary film is: "Clairvoyant: Anouk Claes - A life in two worlds". And here is the wiki-page of SRF: Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen Wega14 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I found a description of ARD (TV Channel), that this movie was in program at 29.10.2013: [14] see also ARD (broadcaster). Wega14 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sandstein: Swiss are not significantly more or less likely to believe in paranormal stuff or fringe science than other Western nations - according to the Wellcome Global Monitor, Switzerland has one of the lowest levels of belief in the safety of vaccines in Europe (and well below US levels).--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability exists. She has written six books with regular publisher and is a bestseller-author. She got own TV-Shows in big TV-Channels. She has a German Wikipedia article for years. The criteria in German Wikipedia are much harder than in English Wikipedia. (see discussion above) It seems to me, that the discussion here is more about the subject, not the notability. Wega14 (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All six books are published by the same Swiss publishing firm (Allinti) - whose catalogue consists of a small set of authors claiming, inter alia, "the gift of spiritual communication with wild animals", "experience with supernatural phenomena began in childhood", "the very high angel of the heavenly hierarchy asked her to open up to direct communication with the divine" (Google translation from original German). I do not believe the firm can be considered reliable or that these texts can be used to establish notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is still another publisher: Ansata Munich [15] , which is a branch of randomhouse .Wega14 (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Allinti was a branch of Brockhaus, but with a special subject. Such books are bestsellers. Don't know, why you think, that we can't count, because it isn't a subject you like. Wega14 (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly Ansata is a division of Random House that publishes similar "wellness" industry texts. I can't determine immediately if Allinti is a division of Brockhaus, but I'll WP:AGF. However, for me, this does not change the fact that the texts are under an imprint which cannot be considered reliable. If it was verifiable that these were some of the highest selling texts within this subject, that might make the publications notable. But there is no evidence of sales. By themselves, the texts cannot be considered reliable publications (they are on a level of self-published work in my view). --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The TV-Channels, which sent TV-Shows about Anouk Claes, are very serious TV-Channels, high culture channels. Wega14 (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anouk Claes is studied, worked for years for Clinic in Basel, which is one of the biggest in Swiss. She is established. Wega14 (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wega14 - I have not made a decision on my !vote here, but there seem to be a lot of assertions. What do you consider to be the best three sources that establish the WP:notability of Anouk Claes? Please provide just three that address the points raised in WP:BASIC.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very difficult, if you can't understand German: Best I would say is Clairvoyant: Anouk Claes - A life in two worlds (German)"". on SRF: Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen. This is a high quality documentary film made about Anouk Claes with around 50 Minutes. It was sent in some German High Culture Channels. One of them you can read here Movie-Description at ARD-Channel see also ARD (broadcaster) translation: "Anouk Claes, born in Belgium, has lived in Basel for many years, where she studied psychology and theology at the university. At the same time, she lives in a world of - as she says - "fine material beings": She sees deceased people, can see through living people, recognize energy flows and emotions, and from this she can deduce the state of health of those concerned. Jakob Bösch, head physician of the external psychiatric services in Basel, has been gathering experience in working with "perceptive faculties" for years. For him, Anouk Claes is the greatest sensitive talent he has encountered so far. The two now carry out therapies together, including at the Bruderholz clinic in Basel. Rosemarie Pfluger shows in the documentary film "Hellsichtig (clairvoyant)" how Anouk Claes succeeds in helping people to heal themselves. A film by Rosemarie Pfluger". Alone that last one I would say, should be already enough. Wega14 (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And second may be this here: deutschlandfunk.de see also Deutschlandfunk translation of part of article: "Psychiatric Clinic Basel Land. Fourth floor. A long corridor. The door signs indicate the functions of the staff: Senior physician, ward nurse, head physician Dr. Jakob Bösch. Then a room with the door sign "Healer".

Anouk Claes: "They call me that. I myself do not use the word. I assume that I am giving the person, in the moment he is with me, the right thing. It happens of course that I cannot help people. For example: I had an elderly woman who was going blind, I can't do anything about it. But I helped her accept it in the end. Anouk Claes has accompanied the psychiatrist Jakob Bösch in many first anamnesis of a patient:

Jakob Bösch: "It's true that working with a healer has advantages from a professional point of view, because I can see the connections far more deeply. For some patients, a chance of healing only arises from this cooperation. With many patients, for example with chronic depression, with chronic pain, we hardly make any progress. This is seldom the case with the healer."

Energetic healing is provocative because it does without any material influence and thus turns the world view of orthodox medicine upside down. Natural science assumes that human beings are purely material beings and therefore require material intervention to heal diseases. Material are all chemical medicines, but also natural remedies, radiation or operations. A mental-spiritual view of man leads to other methods of treatment. Energetic healers do not inject, do not prescribe ointments or pills. On the surface, they do nothing that people expect from a helpful treatment. The spectrum of healing methods ranges from praying, laying on of hands to trance healing. Some people seem to have the gift of being able to positively influence illnesses without medication or physical aids.

The homepage of Anouk Claes

Healers try to strengthen the self-healing powers of the patient. Some see themselves as a channel for a helpful divine energy, others speak of a strengthening stream of love, which they channel into the body and soul of the patient. They suspect that chronically ill people are stuck in mental injuries. These insults lead to negative thought and action patterns. If these become chronic, physical symptoms often arise.

Jakob Bösch: "We have an abundance of experimental data that prove that we can have a mental, or one can also say mental, effect on other organisms, on humans, on animals, on plants. We know a lot about light communication between cells, about electromagnetic fields that we have in and around us, but to describe these things in detail still means a lot of work.

Jakob Bösch, psychiatrist and emeritus private lecturer at the University of Basel, was and is a passionate supporter of classical medicine. Today, he says: "Conventional medicine has left the path of experiential science in some areas. When it comes to spiritual healing methods, the unprejudiced stocktaking has given way to a faithlike defensive attitude.

Jakob Bösch: "One is a priori for or against, and one cannot convince people of anything else with scientific studies. The change takes place through personal life. Be it that you get sick yourself, that a child gets sick, that you perhaps have patients who experience an impressive improvement through, for example, complementary medicine treatment or spiritual healing - this is how the changes happen, but not through study results. There is a structure within us that is usually too rigid."

Comment the last one is also a high culture broadcaster in Germany. Read the text, what they talking about Anouk Claes. It is so astonishing, so new. And they use it in normal medicine, in normal clinic (one of the biggest in Swiss) for years with big success. And they can help people, they couldn't help before. Alone that information is so important ... Wega14 (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Swiss they have hundreds of mediums with own education-places (here a small list [16]). It is an old tradition in Swiss, depends on the Alps, where they developed such a culture over hundred of years. And I would say, Anouk Claes belongs in Swiss to top ten mediums. Wega14 (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wega14 - I've tried to summarise your points here. As far as I can see you have only indicated two reliable sources. I managed to find one more which I have included. However, from what I can see so far, there is not a threshold to cross WP:BASIC. I'm open to reconsidering my !vote, but so far there is simply not enough to justify an article.


Source	Title	Date	Comment	Reliable Source	Significant Coverage
1. SRF	Anouk Claes – Ein Leben in zwei Welten	01.02.2005 (rebroadcast on ARD 29.10.2013)	50 minute piece examining work of Anouk Claes by national public broadcaster. Somewhat dated (15 years old), but rebroadcast strengths relevance.	Yes	Yes
2. Deutschlandfunk	Eine Lange Nacht über Krankheit, Heilung und Gesundheit – Befund und Befindlichkeit	22.04.2017	Article is a discussion of alternative therapies used in conjunction with medical practices. Single paragraph quote from Anouk Claes, but no specific discussion of the notability or significance of Claes' work as a healer. No indication that Claes is working with any medical specialist other than Jakob Bösch; no indication that Claes is actually accredited in the hospital other than as someone brought in by Bösch.	Yes	No
3. Dien Medium	Dein Medium	2019 (?)	No mention of Anouk Claes that I could find, but even if there, the source cannot be considered reliable.	No	No
4. Badener Tagblatt	Mein Körper ist wie eine geölte Maschine	26.02.2018	Profile of massage therapist Katja Stoll of Baden in Swiss regional news service. Passing mention of Anouk Claes: Stoll has been "studying spiritual healing and self-healing with Anouk Claes for six years. The well-known psychologist is known for her special talent for perception."	Yes	No

--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Goldsztajn - The two last sources in your list are not good. Please use for example that one: Movie-Description at ARD-Channel see also ARD (broadcaster) translation: "Anouk Claes, born in Belgium, has lived in Basel for many years, where she studied psychology and theology at the university. At the same time, she lives in a world of - as she says - "fine material beings": She sees deceased people, can see through living people, recognize energy flows and emotions, and from this she can deduce the state of health of those concerned. Jakob Bösch, head physician of the external psychiatric services in Basel, has been gathering experience in working with "perceptive faculties" for years. For him, Anouk Claes is the greatest sensitive talent he has encountered so far. The two now carry out therapies together, including at the Bruderholz clinic in Basel. Rosemarie Pfluger shows in the documentary film "Hellsichtig (clairvoyant)" how Anouk Claes succeeds in helping people to heal themselves. A film by Rosemarie Pfluger" Wega14 (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Goldsztajn - And please use this one: Frankfurter Rundschau: Anouk Claes ist ziemlich helle see also Frankfurter Rundschau translation: Anouk Claes is pretty bright(clairvoyant). Anouk Claes was born in Belgium and is clairvoyant since birth. Nevertheless she never gave up and made the best of both more than adverse circumstances. For one thing, she now lives in Basel, which is as tax-friendly as it is Swiss. On the other hand, she has already written books about her clairvoyance, such as the standard work "Durchsichtig - Hellsichtigkeit und wie Sie am am besten umgehen mit dem. On Friday, April 8, Claes will come to the "Adventure Evening" at 7.30 pm to the hall building in Wilhelm-Leuschner-Straße 69-77 to tell for 15 Euro admission how it is like to be constantly surrounded by "subtle beings", to "see through living people, to recognize energy flows and emotions". Interested people should hurry, because you don't have to be clairvoyant to guess that Claesen's performance will be sold out in no time. Because the business with clairvoyance is booming. Lectures, workshops - all that is more than well booked. "At the moment there are unfortunately no more individual consultations available, as Anouk Claes is completely booked out", the website of Mrs. Claes informs us. Oh, you have to be clairvoyant. We are already practising. Looking through the person sitting next to us is already working quite well. Wega14 (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Goldsztajn - And please use this one: derbund.ch: Interview with Anouk Claes translation: "Hate feels very pleasant, When someone tells me what they are suffering from, it takes me about ten minutes to find out what the causes are and how they can do something about it," says Anouk Claes. The 36-year-old is a sought-after therapist because of her clairvoyance. She not only talks to people, but also to coconuts and wine bottles. Do you have to notify a clairvoyant woman if you do not arrive in time for the interview because the train was late? Or does she know this long before you call? I do call then. A quarter of an hour later, an inconspicuous young woman greets us and takes us to a small office at the hay scale in Basel. She is only a subtenant here, she says almost apologetically to the photographer. Then she sits down and waits for the questions.

"Ms. Claes, you're famous for your clairvoyance. When did you become aware of this ability?

Anouk Claes:I have always seen more, but I didn't find it very useful as a child. I couldn't imagine back then that others didn't see exactly the same as I did. When I was about ten years old, I became aware that other people were asking questions that were unnecessary for me.

For example?

If someone told me that his sister was sad yesterday, I wondered why the person he was talking to would respond, while I saw that she had become angry, not sad. I did not understand why people often do not say what they feel. At some point I decided to stick to the words, to give people the freedom to say what they want to say. From then on I did not confront them anymore if the words did not match the feelings. There is always a reason when someone behaves like that, you have to respect that.

Do you look at the people who come to you for counselling to see what health problems they have?

I could scan that, yes, but I also give everyone there the freedom to tell me what they want to talk about. If someone tells me what they are suffering from, it takes me about ten minutes to find out what the causes are and how they can do something about it.

What concerns do people come to you with?

It is very different. Many come for chronic pain, some only after 10 or 15 years of suffering. Others want advice on relationship issues, want to get their sleeping problems under control. Many complaints have to do with repressed emotions. I can recognize which emotions are suppressed because I see the seat of the emotions in the body. And I can help to reactivate suppressed emotions.

Can you heal people who are seriously ill?

Sometimes healing occurs, yes. I have seen severe chronic pain resolve itself instantly. But I do not do this alone, it always happens in cooperation with the people who seek my help. I can only give impulses for self-healing.

Anouk Claes was born in Belgium. When she was 14 years old and working at a campsite at the reception, she noticed that many guests were looking for her closeness, confiding in her personal belongings. "I've always done what I do today, but I didn't know for a long time that this could be a profession," says the 36-year-old. She studied psychology in Belgium, but started all over again in Basel because her degree was not recognised. Before her licentiate, she travelled to China for three years, where her daughter was born. Back in Basel she began to work as a therapist, medium and trainer and studied theology for four years while working.

Energy field like a swarm of mosquitoes

Anouk Claes bases her work on two pillars: she looks to see whether the five emotions of grief, love, happiness, anger and jealousy are in balance or whether something is being suppressed that can lead to illness. While talking to clients, she sees the five emotions as patches of colour in the upper body. The second pillar is the energy field in and around the body. "These are particles that fly around freely", says Claes, "like a swarm of mosquitoes in summer". She pays special attention to the size and density. The initial density differs from person to person, there is no standard. However, it is important that the density decreases continuously with increasing distance from the body and does not suddenly drop from 90 to 30 particles per square centimetre. emotions colored, energy colorless

When Anouk Claes talks about her work, there's nothing gushing about it, you never get the impression that she thinks it's something special, wants to make herself interesting. "I wasn't aiming for that, it just happened," she says. "My work is primarily a translation work. When I am confronted with a person, there is a huge amount of information. To evaluate all of this would take hours. That's why I have to filter out the most important information and then translate it into words that can be understood by everyone."

At first she saw the energy fields in colour, she says, in the same way as you see aura-images in books. But since she also sees the feelings in colours, this would have led to confusion. So she decided to see the energy field in black and white and to pay attention to size and particle density. "The transformation of information into pictures only occurs in my brain, so I can choose which representation fits best. It's like in digital data processing: when I receive an SMS, letters don't fly through the air. I can choose how my phone displays the message."

When ideas don't come in

And what good does that do if someone knows how large, how dense, how regular his energy field is? Claes says this is important in interpersonal contact. People with an energy field that is too dense often have difficulty reaching others with their ideas. "They bring a proposal to the plenum and no one pays any attention. A week later a colleague comes up with the same idea and everyone thinks it's great. This may be due to the energy field. If it's too dense, the enthusiasm won't get through." People like that would have trouble grasping the person across from them. "And they're always served last in the garden restaurant because they're simply overlooked." Claes says mental work can change the energy field.

Do you see your gift as a reward or an obligation?

It's perfectly normal for me. If you're musically gifted, you don't have to make music, but you like doing it.

How do you proceed when someone calls on your help because of sleep problems?

I ask since when the person suffers from it, when the problems occur, how it feels. While we are talking, my work starts, I start to look, check different causes. Often sleep disorders have to do with mental underload. I divide people into body, feelings, ego and mind. The ego acts on the action level, it represents the dual thinking, divided into small/big, good/bad, before/after. The mind is not bound to time and place. People who have their focus in the mind are quickly bored if they use the mind too little. This can lead to restlessness and insomnia.

And how do you change this?

By giving the mind more opportunities to develop. We can travel with the mind, dive into the last winter or into the next summer. We all do it to some extent, but it can be intensified, expanded. That way the spirit is challenged more.

Meditation teachers teach us just the opposite: to be more in the here and now, not always living in the past or future.

What is the present then? For people who have their focus in the mind, the Now is very limited. To concentrate in meditation on this small point is a limitation that causes nervousness; they need to be able to travel into the past and into the future. For people who sit more in the body, the same meditation exercise can be very relaxing. This is all very individual.

What are the main reasons why people get out of balance?

One main problem is that many people think there is something wrong with them, that they should be different. They think they're too materialistic, putting the invisible above the visible. For me all matter is divine, I do not separate the human from the divine. It is therefore not the aim to become independent of the body, of the ego, to be completely spiritualized. Without ego, without this judgmental distance on the level of action, we can't even make coffee. Without ego there would be no ambition, no sport, no progress. We need the ego in everyday life, but it should not be the only instance. But there is also no reason to want to get rid of the ego. This is a common desire. Then the ego creeps into the spiritual world. People then say: "I'm further than you, I have higher vibrations." I find that very exhausting. Because it's a lie?

Because it's too one-sided. There's nothing wrong with having negative thoughts. Everyone has them, and normal thinking is half of it. From a mental perspective, it doesn't have to be devalued. I often tell people to start thinking negative thoughts again. You do it one way or the other, to cover it up or suppress it is very exhausting. At some point you are exhausted, and the pile-up makes its way. People usually feel bad because they think that they are bad; that they should be different. The important thing is to give your feelings and thoughts room. They do not disappear if you ignore them. Hate, for example, is ok, it feels very comfortable if you let it. Hate simply means "I don't want to". Many people no longer allow themselves to want or not want anything; they believe they have to accept everything.

When she talks like that, you might think you're sitting with an ordinary psychologist. But then Claes tells how she asks managers for office supplies and wine bottles to find out why some sell badly. That recently a coconut that she actually wanted to eat complained about the bad harvest conditions in the Caribbean. And that she likes to discuss in the supermarket with different detergents - not only about which one can best tackle the stains, but also about politics.

"Everything in nature has access to all levels of information," says Claes, "whether we're talking to a dog, a tree or a stone makes no difference, it's all nature, everything the same age, everything the same mass.

Do you often travel in other worlds, Mrs Claes? "Yes, actually always, I'm used to it. There are so many universes and life forms. I'm always exploring new worlds. Not aimlessly, I download a map." From the Internet? "No, I'm tapping into the vast pool of knowledge available to us all."

Then it's time to go. I have a client waiting in the outer office. We're disoriented and headed for the station. The train is on time. We travel, quite solidly, back to Bern. Wega14 (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Goldsztajn There are still more, if you need. Wega14 (talk)

Delete: I would only want to "see more" if it were not interviews, home page content, or other self-published sources. Regardless of all the wishes, the criteria for notability is evidenced by significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. I just do not see the subject meeting the criteria for inclusion in a worldwide encyclopedia. "She not only talks to people, but also to coconuts and wine bottles.", and she also converses with "different detergents". I don't find this particularly interesting or intriguing but some may. It is not Wikipedia's goal to advance the strange paranormal or stranger para-abnormal. There has to be irrefutable sourcing per policies and guidelines. It is not our job to determine the truthfulness. When someone believes in the Bible they can believe that we can talk to a mountain (verse 23). Anything short of proper sourcing and Wikipedia is guilty of propagating fringe theories. Otr500 (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was the main subject of a documentary film on a nationally broadcast German public television station. While she does have some self-published material, one of her books was published by a subsidiary of Random House and her work is held in her nation's national library. All put together, I think it's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Ultimately the critics here seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lone indicator of notability that meets our requirements is the documentary. It is telling that the strenuous effort by the article creator has failed to present any other sources that possess convincing indices of reliability. I don't know what the huge excerpt from an uncited interview is supposed to be accomplishing but it has every appearance of copyright violation that should be revdel'ed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cubethon[edit]

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

non notable game, has exactly 0 sources (other than a random youtube video) Praxidicae (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, cant find anything that makes this in any way notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much everything has been said here. Seems to have been created by a new account to promote the game. I have been unable to find a single independent source talking about it (that isn't a listing), let alone anything significant. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet basic notability threshold. Clearly promotional and created by user who at one point claimed connection with developer/publisher. Glendoremus (talk) 04:36, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl W. Perry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are no independent sources covering this person. TM 14:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TM 14:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. State party chair won't get you there. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon. There are, in fact, independent sources covering this fellow[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] those are just a few, but the coverage is very routine. If he makes it onto the general election ballot for governor of New Hampshire, I think a redirect to Libertarian Party of New Hampshire might then be appropriate, or if that article at some point in the future adds a reliably sourced list of party chairs, but at the present, a redirect doesn't make sense.Jahaza (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jahaza that the coverage is too routine and/or trival to satisfy WP:GNG. However, I think a redirect to 2016 Libertarian National Convention#Presidential delegate count would be in order, as Perry was a candidate for the 2016 presidential nomination.Sal2100 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little more than routine coverage. Fails WP:NPOL as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being state-level party of a minor political party is not a free pass over WP:NPOL that would exempt a person from having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing — but this article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all. (For instance, a person is not notable as a journalist just because you can "cite" pieces of his bylined coverage about other things — he becomes notable as a journalist if and when his work as a journalist has been the subject of coverage written by other people.) Literally the only footnote here that represents a reliable source at all, further, is still not about him in any substantive way; it just briefly quotes him as a giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else, and thus is not a notability-assisting source either. To be notable for this, he would have to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there are sources, they're just not in the article. But the coverage is largely routine, which is why I don't support an article now.Jahaza (talk) 23:13, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn, no users arguing for delete per SKCRIT#1 (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Development Company[edit]

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

Neither the given links nor my searches are showing anything to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per sources could be found to verify its notability.WikiAviator (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which source establish notability under WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH? GSS ^💬 13:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m definitely not seeing the requisite sources to establish notability, either in this article or in its sister article on zhwiki. Whether they exist on the web, I can’t really tell because I’m not that good at Chinese. But from what I can understand, I don’t see WP:SIGCOV. All that said, this might not be so surprising for a company founded in the 60s; if there is significant coverage it could be both offline and in Chinese. If so, I urge the page creator to focus on providing that coverage. Otherwise I think it is extremely likely this page will be deleted at the end of 7 days. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@199.66.69.88 @GSS I've found credible sources by prominent newspapers in Chinese that have whole articles about the projects of Kowloon Development Company. Sources: [24][25][26][27][28][29]. They are all reliable sources that can verify notability of the company. Therefore the article complies with WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.WikiAviator (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added sources to article. Should be able to meet notability guidelines.WikiAviator (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAviator, searching for "九龍建業有限公司" in the sources you provided above I found nothing. What they are about? GSS ^💬 15:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS Hong Kong press sometimes refer the company as 九龍建業 or even 九建. Therefore you may find nothing if you search for 九龍建業有限公司.WikiAviator (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you need to see WP:ROUTINE, none of these sources establish notability under WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 15:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: I should say that it's pretty likely that SIGCOV exists here in light of the fact that this company is listed on a major exchange. While being listed on a major exchange isn't a free pass to WP:CORP, I think it's pretty likely we should find enough. Here I provide analysis of the references WikiAviator provided:

The link to Apple Daily, I can't really understand. To me it looks like trade press and might be long enough to satisfy typical GNG. However, there may be problems anticipated by WP:ORGIND, given this is trade press: While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility. This definitely isn't a feature story, so I don't think it counts. I can't say whether, if not for the ORGIND issue, that it would count.

The analysis in Hong Kong Economic Journal does not look like the "trivial coverage" anticipated by WP:CORPDEPTH, even though it's primarily a discussion of their financial performance rather than something more "meaty" from which you could write an article. The problem for me is the same ORGIND issue that plagues the Apple Daily source above. If not for the ORGIND issue, I would say this one counts.

The announcement in Ming Pao looks like fairly trivial coverage to me, like a reprint of a press release with little if any added coverage. What I can't tell is if what I see is the whole article or if it's partially paywalled. But what I can see right now says this one probably shouldn't count.

The announcement at Finet just looks like a reprint of a press release to me, announcing a financial transaction. I don't think it helps with WP:CORPDEPTH.

The article at Hong Kong Economic Times is an interview article with a named author attributed. However, the same WP:ORGIND problem comes up here. This doesn't look like a feature story. If it were not for the ORGIND issue, I would probably count this one too.

The second Apple Daily article is paywalled for me and I can't read it.

So, I appreciate the sources, but I think we may need something more significant. Are there any books discussing this company? Or major feature stories in the trade press? See WP:ORGIND for what I mean by "feature story". 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@199.66.69.88 actually in the world of Hong Kong press, featured stories are the ones that are paid to be published. Also, Apple Daily isn't a newspaper that gets paid to increase the visibility of a company (at least from my understanding) and it is an anti-rich and anti-government press which tends to negatively depict property developers, therefore the articles are not paid-written. Also, due to political pressure for the Chinese Government, no company that wants to expand in mainland China dares to put an ad on Apple Daily or ask the Daily to write promotional article (c'mon promotional articles are very obvious). WikiAviator (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Part of the issue for me is that WP:ORGIND is fairly new, at least in my experience (promulgated about 2 years ago after a RfC). And, in my view it’s a good bit of rulemaking because of just how Wikipedia has turned into a sieve for corporate profiles, products, etc. simply because there are a couple articles out there. But I’m of the opinion that listing on a major exchange weighs quite heavily in favor of a finding of notability, even if we don’t have the sources in hand. Based on the sources you’ve provided, even though they themselves are probably insufficient for WP:ORGIND purposes, I believe there are sufficient indica of notability if we look at the totality of the evidence. Therefore, I say weak keep. This is a situation which the guidelines don’t adequately anticipate. WP:GNG is satisfied and there are adequate indicia of notability in the sources even if we don’t have a smoking gun to get past ORGIND. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the addition of more sources the page now passes WP:GNG when it did not appear to at nomination. All things considered the company appears to be highly notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye Jack: You must look at the analysis of the sources above. None of these sources meet the requirments set by WP:ORGIND so, there is no way it passes the GNG. GSS ^💬 02:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @GSS if. you find on Google books you may not find whole books about the company, but you can still find many finance-related Chinese bookw have coverage of the keyword "九龍建業", mostly mentioning it as an example to back-up the theories and arguements in the book.WikiAviator (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any source that provide in-depth coverage of the topic as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? GSS ^💬 02:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- (edit conflict) Would you mind giving some examples? I'm sorry to ask you to do the legwork on it but just my conversational Chinese is really rusty; I don't think I have a hope of finding particular books. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@199.66.69.88: These aren't whole books about the company but they are research books that use the historic events of the company to back-up their theories (at least have one page of coverage). Hope these can help: [30][31][32][33][34][35].WikiAviator (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@GSS: The sources I've listed may appear as one-time mentions and trivial coverages of the company, but actually they are whole articles about the companies products and development by reliable independent sources. Here are some more if you want: [36][37][38][39]. WikiAviator (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that these sources are already enough to prove the company's notability.WikiAviator (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of them supports notability IMO as they do not meet the requirements set out at WP:CORPDEPTH etc. GSS ^💬 03:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to reiterate that the mentions of the company in the books meet "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. in CORPDEPTH. Also, please read the comments I've posted above, they clearly explain why these sources are reliable. Could you give me a concrete reason why any of these sources aren't fulfilling the requirements of CORPDEPTH? Thanks a lot. WikiAviator (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are also analysis and studies that include the company such as [40][41] by numerous universities. I don't see how the subject of the article fails to comply with CORPDEPTH guidelines.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Checking, ref 17 is a link to a phd thesis, which is ref 18, that is largely about the company. I consider that sufficient. But it shouldn't be listed twice. This is more than we usuall have for such companies. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination in light of the additional sources espacially #18 as pointed out by DGG above. @WikiAviator:, please include the ref #18 to the article before someone close this AfD. Thank you all for your time and analysis. GSS ^💬 05:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: Source added. Please withdraw the submission yourself (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_(nominator_withdrawal)). Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 05:54, 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 Speedy deleted as G4 violation. Harrias ^talk 13:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan A cricket team in India in 2019[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Recreated again after an Afd deletion on this previously. Abishe (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:53, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaize Kazmi[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any coverage on this actor and there is no evidence he played a significant role in the film or shows listed in the article. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 12:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject doesn't currently pass WP:NACTOR. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 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 redirect to View Askew Productions. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Askew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this podcast is notable for WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Kept in 2006 when everything was notable if it existed, today standards are a bit tougher. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to View Askew Productions (with an extremely selective merge) lest we get another relist. ミラ P 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 19:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to View Askew Productions. _SUPER ^ASTIG 16:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Kaweendra (talk) 14:47, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andras Felkai Academic Award[edit]

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

This unsourced article from 2009 about a scholarship was proposed for deletion by User:Another Believer. I had to decline PROD as the article has previously been undeleted following a speedy deletion. I have been unable to find sources online to establish that the scholarship meets WP:GNG. kingboyk (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews, gscholar , just 1 hit in gbooks. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see a couple press releases about past recipients but nothing that meets basic requirements for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found one good source from my university database: "Hungary : Citi Presents the 2012 Andras Felkai Academic Awards in Hungary",Mena Report, August 30, 2012. The article does give a history of the awards and it's a publication outside of the award's country indicating independent coverage that is significant. However, it is only one source and therefore lacks the multiple sources requirement of WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pedana[edit]

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

this appears to be a spam article about a non-notable musician, sourced almost entirely to unreliable sources and a google search reveals nothing but fake news sites (fake news sites created by blackhat seo firms to make their clients seem more notable than they actually are.)

The only real claim to notability here is that he was a finalist in the NY film festival but there are 0 sources to back that up (including the one that's already there.) Praxidicae (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable. The nominator has been wikihounding me.Beritagsier (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sourcing is either unreliable, from user-generated sites, or from fake news/pay-for-coverage sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references are weak and the paid sourcing is an issue. Dorama285 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no significant sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderland Village[edit]

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

The article makes no claim of notability. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shopping center has a long history and serious impact on the community. Working now on adding some more sources, of which I've found plenty in the Detroit Free Press. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added a source verifying that at the time of construction, the mall had the largest Montgomery Ward in the chain. The renovations in 1983 and the 1990s also seem to have gotten a deal of attention from various business journals, but at the time of nomination most of them had gone 404. I remedied this to help show the breadth of coverage better. @Esprit15d: does this look sufficient to a notability claim now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer. I trust his judgment. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TPH. The article seems notable. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:35, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dandanon[edit]

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

No good sources could be found in the 25 Google HIts[42] or in GBooks, beyond the one source already in the article. Fails WP:N. No obvious redirect target, company has no article either. Fram (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of SIGCOV in RS, fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 04:18, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AnimOuch![edit]

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

No good sources found in Gbooks or in the 58 Ghits[43] beyond the one listed in the article. Fails WP:N. No obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 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. Sandstein 15:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magister (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Magister claim that they have received significant coverage here in Il Sole 24 Ore. I haven't been able to find a copy of that article though. I was unable to find any more sources. Vexations (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The brief unsigned piece from the "Business and Job" section of Il Sole 24 Ore does claim that this company has an established market position ("Fra i marchi al top un posto solido") but is that more than noting a company sustaining its business? Searches find listings for their machines and spare parts, as well as inclusion of one of their machines in a "Top 5 espresso machines for coffee lovers" item on the Fox News site, but I do not see the detailed coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides the the total lack of coverage, does making supplies for coffee machines really rate an encyclopedia article? Bearian (talk) 15:18, 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ILVE appliances[edit]

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

Primary coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 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 keep. It seems that the article is now passing the WP:GNG and fellow Wikipedians have also voted in favour of keeping this article. (non-admin closure) Abishe (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seas Company[edit]

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

No clear existence of this company. The article doesn't cite any inline citations and fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Couldn't find anything about it on Google though could find some stuff of Google Books about the parent company, Bruce Humphries, Inc suggested in the article. Unverifiable article. Should definitely be deleted.--WikiAviator (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Can't find anything in independent sources that establishes it's notability. It possibly is notable for being the publisher that gave those authors their first break, but no one has written about that fact to say that the company is notable. - X201 (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep Original delete was based on being unable to get any online sources like below to show up. Wasn't disputing the offline ones, but usually something of some kind shows up in a search. May be worth using the text field in the reference template to quote the offline sources if someone has access to them. - X201 (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry, I'm confused. There are three citations on the article that back up the claims:
- Adventures in American Bookshops, Antique Stores and Auction Rooms by Guido Bruno, Douglas Bookshop (1922)
- American Literary Publishing Houses, 1900-1980: Trade and Paperback ed by Peter Dzwonkoski, Gale Literary Research Center (1986)
- This New York Times article from 1922

The first two are old dead-tree sources, and probably not accessible on Google Books, but per AGF, they exist and can be located through specialist sources. But it seems like the people participating in this discussion are acting like those citations don't exist, and we should speedily delete the article because it's unverifiable. Am I missing something? -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, no, I think you're right. The nom is mistaken. Sources do not have to be available online or easy to find. The coverage in the NYT is pretty brief: "The Brazilian Centenary Exposition lends interest to the announcement that two books recently published by The Four Seas Company are the only examples of Brazilian literature so far translated into English." The company is then notable (per the NYT) for being the first to publish Brazilian literature in English translation. A search on the timesmachine shows four additional articles that mention "Four Seas Company". Keep Vexations (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs Actually NY Times articles are renowned for single-sentence coverage of companies. I got paywalled in TimeMachine bcuz I'm not a subscriber. Is this the only sentence you could find in that article that mentions the company or are there even more? Thanks. In that case I don't think the article complies with WP:CORPDEPTH.WikiAviator (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources.

From William Faulkner, Life Glimpses by Louis Daniel Brodsky, University of Texas Press (2011):

Notwithstanding, on June 20, 1923, William Faulker took the initiative to write the Four Seas Company of Boston, offering for possible publication a collection of poems, some of which may have been revised from earlier versions of Vision in Spring, a typed, eighty-eight-page booklet Faulkner hand-bound in 1921. He had entitled this manuscript Orpheus, and Other Poems. It was rejected more by Faulkner than by the publishing firm that had offered to publish it if money were advance for its printing costs. Instead, Faulkner assembled a different manuscript consisting of poems written during the months of April, May, and June 1919 entitled The Marble Faun... Apparently satisfied that the Faulkner/Stone consortium would subvent the four hundred dollars required for publication of the projected volume of poetry Faulkner had sent, the Four Seas Company proceeded with typesetting and had page proofs to Faulkner by late September 1924... Stone's offerings were accompanied by a simple, yet suggestive, proviso: Four Seas would be free to make use of any of these new poems, provided that Faulkner would have unencumbered right to them for his next book.

Boston University has a collection called Publishing William Carlos Williams: selected correspondence, which collects Williams' correspondence with the Four Seas Company.
The Archives at Yale also has a collection of Gertrude Stein's correspondence with the Four Seas Company.
See also Gertrude Stein: The Language That Rises: 1923-1934 by Ulla E. Dydo and William Rice, Northwestern University Press (2003). -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is the excerpt from American Literary Publishing Houses along with the history of their "Contemporary Series." Seems to meet notability guidelines. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs and Mr. Vernon. Gritmem (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as significant publisher for Yone Noguchi among others; see UC Berkeley Bancroft library collection of Noguchi letters to Brown ("Yone Noguchi letters, 1918-1923." [44])--Icuc2 (talk) 05:56, 28 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 House of Representatives (Netherlands). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tweede Kamerlijn[edit]

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

No evidence this radio program passes WP:NMEDIA/GNG. There is no Dutch Wikipedia article to use for any expansion, neither. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: I barely found anything about the subject. _SUPER ^ASTIG 16:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Instead of destruction of this article, it can be merged with House of Representatives (Netherlands). Looks like another faulty WP:BEFORE of the nominator. The Banner talk 09:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No referenced content to merge. What's at fault is your understanding of WP:V.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is your understanding of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives? The Banner talk 13:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know you do not like Dutch-language sources, but take this one: Vergaderingen Tweede Kamer alleen nog via NPO Politiek], making a merge with NPO Politiek also a reasonable option for a merge. The Banner talk 13:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know why you assume I dislike Dutch-language sources, they are totally fine. Anyway, the main issue is there is nothing to merge (no referenced content in the article as of now). You are welcome to reference this substub and merge it then at any time, I am fine with SOFTDELETE if there is a valid redirect target that will mention this entity (and with said mention being properly referenced).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by User:The Banner. This is an important communication channel of the Tweede Kamer! gidonb (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House of Representatives (Netherlands): Per The Banner. It's better to move the contents there. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:36, 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 keep. Most editors believe that the sources for this article qualify for GNG. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omroep Zeeland[edit]

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

No evidence this organization (radio station?) passes WP:NORG/GNG. Linked Dutch wiki article is a bit longer but not better referenced. Could consider SOFDELETE and redirect to parent organization (Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (organization)). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep [1] The length of an article should not be a criterium for deletion. It seems to be a criterium here. [2] Per WP:NEXIST it doesn't matter if there are sufficient references in the article or not. It only matters if valid sources exist. [3] Nominator evidently did not do a WP:BEFORE as he refers only to what is in the article and on nl.wiki. He seems confused about what a broadcaster is. This is reason to speedy the keep. gidonb (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you'd consider length to be a criterium here, I certainly agree it is not. The relevant criteria is failure of NORG/GNG. I did my BEFORE - but I see no evidence you did yours... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did my WP:BEFORE before creating the article in February 2018 and stand 100% behind it, per all relevant criteria, including WP:NORG, WP:GNG, and the disregarded professional standard (!), WP:NMEDIA. If you keep nominating articles that pass all relevant criteria, and these nominations keep failing, then you do have a WP:BEFORE problem. The continuous arguing with each participant here reflects negatively on the nominator. The prodding of an article that passes the professional standards is forbidden per policy: "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." I.e. prod should never be used if there is not even the beginning of a case for regular deletion. AfD should not be used in such a case either but prodding is even more disruptive behavior. gidonb (talk) 06:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep What gives you the idea that this independent broadcaster is part of the Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (organization)??? Clearly, not a proper WP:BEFORE was done. The Banner talk 12:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of you have even tried to address that this fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. If I am confused about what this even is, it is just further proof this mess of an article just needs WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you did not read the article and its WP assoiates carefully, did not conduct a thorough web search for aources, now you say you did not even read my answer you react to carefully? My #2 addresses the existence of sufficient valid sources that weren't searched for as part of this nomination! gidonb (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominens and straw man fallacy are not good arguments, try again. Your #2 is simple WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES/WP:GOOGLEHITS. How about you present a single in-depth source or another source that meets NORG/GNG, instead of attacking fellow editors? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's talking about straw man arguments! My #2 argument is explicitly about our POLICY "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". After being caught red-handed by multiple participants here in a WP:BEFORE failure, you change this into a there must be sources (essay) argument. One can't make this stuff up! Instead of arguing with every single participant here, why not withdraw the nomination? It was clearly a mistake. gidonb (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expect a higher level of quality and civility from admins... The Banner talk 22:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per gidonb. With more sources added, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not looking for an argument here. So, I won't reply any further. I stand by my vote no matter what. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been expanded and looks much better than before. Some of the expansion is routine business trivia or sourced to the subject, but some is better and sourced to independent sources. It's much more borderline now. My main concern is that there are still no in-depth sources about the company, some coverage of incidents it was involved in like getting their website hacked or one of their employees causing a scandal is problematic since it is not, well, in-depth. WP:NOTNEWS, after all. Let's see what others think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved by Gidonb since the nomination. If some of the 25 sources now cited in the article are independent and reliable, then GNG is met. I think that demanding more sources in order to pass GNG just encourages the addition of more trivia, like the sexual assault incident. This article is fine; we should move on. -- Toughpigs (talk) 08:01, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STOCS lite[edit]

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

Lacks notability. One source given, no other ones found in Gbooks or in the 48 Ghits[45]. No article for company, no obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:59, 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzy (role-playing game)[edit]

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

Lacks notability (one source given, no good other sources found: it gets reviewed on LeGrog, but that site was at the time of that review just a wiki). No obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks WP:SIGCOV in RS; fails WP:NCORP Chetsford (talk) 04:18, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gold (politician)[edit]

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

Despite WP:POLITICIAN, no evidence that this person has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Cited source is trivial coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search in Google Books yields a few hits. Late 18th/early 19th-century sources are most likely off line, but as guideline supplements say, such persons rarely come ex-nihilo. From the sources found so far, the subject was a farmer, a merchant and a church deacon. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The politician rules mean everyone ever elected to a state legislature for which we can verrify this fact is notable and we should have an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suspect that To Marry an Indian: The Marriage of Harriett Gold and Elias Boudinot in Letters, 1823-1839 edited by Theresa Strouth Gaul with letters by Elias Boudinot and Harriett Gold Boudinot published by the

University of North Carolina Press in 2005 and running 222 pages will have enough information on Benjamin Gold to justfy this entry.John Pack Lambert (talk)

First, WP:OTHERSTUFF, if no coverage exists beyond this person exist and had this role to support an article beyond this stub line, why devote an article towards him versus having him in a list article? Strong suspicions that a person has coverage is not actually verifying significant coverage as notability is not inherited. Also aren't relying on the letter themselves primary sources (again this is a presumption there is actually coverage) if there is no critical analysis? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the points raised above this book, published by a university press, has a chapter about Benjamin Gold, and mentions his name on 23 pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the poor condition of the article, sufficient evidence has been produced to likely eventual improvement. In Wikipedia, eventually is generally fast enough, as cleanup has no deadline. Additionally, the nominator's presumption that coverage does not exists despite the evidence produced so far goes against WP:BIO's express statement that office holders like the subject are presumed to be notable. Finally, guidelines require sources to be reliable and independent, not that they provide critical analysis. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree on the issue of primary versus secondary coverage. Republishing historical letters that two people sent each other provides no more proof of notability without any commentary (or critical analysis) by the secondary source similar to interview transcripts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the article is in poor condition as written, and needs significant improvement — but verifiable members of state legislatures have a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1. It's true that for politicians in the 19th century, our articles are often of poor quality — but it's not that they don't have sources, it's that Wikipedians tend to be lazy about locating any sources above and beyond whatever they can find in a quick Google News search, so topics outside of the current news cycle often get overlooked and undersourced. But our rule is not that the article has to surpass any particular quality level — if the appropriate sources merely exist to improve the article with, then we keep the article and just flag it for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs some serious expansion but the subject clearly meets WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asjad Raza Khan[edit]

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

Non Notable Islamic scholar. I think the real successeor of Akhtar Raza Khan is Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 21:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. We generally only keep the grand mufti of a country/state. Two news stories is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This man made national news by becoming the Barelvi Islamic Chief Justice in India. That is head of a sect to which the majority of India’s Muslims belong. Additional sources at [1], [2], [3] and [4]. @Bearian: can you tell me the basis for saying we generally only keep the Grand Mufti of a country? I’ve seen numerous contributions at AfD saying that Christian bishops are generally notable, though canons, monsignors, deacons are not unless by GNG. that’s a very different standard to ‘one guy per country’. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 桜 c) 07:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mccapra. Considering the untold number of articles about Catholic, Protestant and Anglican clerics, I think his rank qualifies. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changed based on multiple good sources found. Please make sure, closing admin, that they are added to the article. By "state", I mean sectarian division or province, in addition to a country. India is a country of about 1 Billion persons, so having just one notable cleric for the whole nation would not be equitable. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this person is notable, why don't any pictures appear on the internet. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 05:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A truly worth-keeping article. In addition, I am convinced by Mccapra's argument above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:44, 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 Redirected to Azerbaijan State Film Fund. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dovlat Film Fond[edit]

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

Stub article - wrong heading. A better article can be found here: Azerbaijan State Film Fund leilahuseynova (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. leilahuseynova (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I guess you wanna redirect this article into Azerbaijan State Film Fund as both articles cover the same fund and Azerbaijan State Film Fund is a better article. @Leila1717 next time you can redirect articles right away yourself without putting it up for deletion, but for now don't redirect it yet until the deletion process is closed.--WikiAviator (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point for an article that was incorrectly nominated. This is a perfectly valid search term and noncontroversial redirect so the article itself shouldn't be deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to nominate for deletion. This is a simple redirect as it's a duplicate article that's a stub. I will be bold and do just that. Dovlat Film Fond is a translation of State Film Fund (Azərbaycan Dövlət Film Fondu). —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia shall we close this discussion now? --WikiAviator (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiAviator: Yes please. Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia a deletion resulting in "redirect" must be carried out by an uninvolved admin per WP:BADNAC. Therefore we have to wait for it to be closed.--WikiAviator (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination per additional sources provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scottie Phillips[edit]

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

The subject has had a strong college career, but I don't think that he quite meets WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH, with an honorable mention at the NCJAA All-America and a SEC Offensive Player of the Week as his highest awards. If he goes on to have a professional career, this may just be WP:TOOSOON. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Phillips may not technically meet some notability guidelines, he does meet what is generally considered acceptable by the Wikipedia community, being a starter on a power 5 division 1 team, who is nationally recognized and is expected to be drafted in the NFL in April. Furthermore, Phillips has received much local and state press, in addition to some national press, much of which is secondary or tertiary press coming from credible publications, meaning he should qualify for general notability standards. In addition to this, Phillips has been widely projected by multiple media sources to be drafted into the NFL, where it is common Wikipedia standard for all drafted players to have a page, meaning this page would simply need to be re-created in about a month. Hitpoint0213 (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The standard written in WP:NGRIDIRON is having actually played in a professional game, not merely being drafted. If the community's consensus on this matter has shifted, we should correct the guideline. As for the coverage, the article as written does not include this wealth of sources. I tried searching online, but I came up with just a bunch of trivial coverage. Given the nature of sports press, it's possible I missed something. If you can provide GNG-meeting coverage I'll happily withdraw this AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill

^talk 05:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hitpoint0213 as he is still acceptable and sources could be found to support his notability. Expansion of article may be needed but deletion is unnecessary.--WikiAviator (talk) 05:52, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Ann Drazba[edit]

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

no more than WP:LOCALFAME, if even that. Dying does not confer inherent notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This seems to me like a fairly open and shut case where we should have an article and where the argument for deletion is, respectfully, extremely threadbare. WP:LOCALFAME addresses situations where someone is famous locally for something they did locally. This person is notable--and not just in her hometown--for being one of the first two American nurses to die in the Vietnam War. Nor is she notable just because she died, as the nominator suggested; she's notable because of when she died, where she died, what she was doing when she died, and why she died. As a result, numerous reliable sources discuss her life and her death, only a few of which were added as a starting point when creating this article earlier this evening. (To my admitted irritation, this was nominated for deletion the very evening it was re-created.) The argument the nominator made on the talk page is likewise insufficient as a basis for deletion: That not everything needs its own article. Sure, but notable subjects covered in reliable sources should. That's... basically what we do here. Moreover, consider the following:

There was a prior version of this page that existed until February 4, 2020, when it was deleted due to a copyright violation -- a user had engaged in wholesale copyright violations, and this was a page that he or she had worked on or created so it was assumed to be a violation. The reasons given by the admin at the time did not suggest any problem with notability, and the page had existed for many years prior to deletion. Indeed, as is standard, the admin invited anyone who wanted to recreate the banned user's pages without copyright violations to do so. The re-creation of this article this evening followed that invitation.
I came across the article (or lack thereof) this evening when conducting research into women in the Vietnam War; I was specifically searching for this person, found that we used to have an article but no longer did, and so jumped in to re-add it. I've never been to Dunmore or Scranton, the supposedly "local fame" area. If people from areas nowhere near the "local fame" area are searching for someone, they're probably not only famous locally. Moreover, this article was re-created just over two weeks after its deletion for a CopyVio; people therefore seem to be searching for this topic sufficiently often that it doesn't take long not only for someone to land on it, but for someone willing to make an article to do so.
There were multiple links to the prior article, which were rendered dead by its temporary deletion. On the talk page, the nominator says that's ok, because we can just delete those dead links -- but that badly misses the point. The point is that this person was notable enough that other Wikipedia articles link to an article about her.

In short, this seems to me like an article that we have had for a long time, on a subject that is clearly notable in light of the coverage in reliable sources, and thus not an appropriate subject for deletion.TheOther Bob 02:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOtherBob: I've addressed this on the talkpage already. The links you are concerned about making red are links that should only exist if the person is notable to begin with - if a vandal were to create an article on his neighbor Jim and link it from his school or hometown article, we wouldn't cry "oh no, if we delete the article then the link will go dead," we'd simply remove the non-notable entry, as we should here. If this is a notable person covered in significant detail in reliable sources that go beyond local interest, please produce some of the sources. They are not currently present. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only were there sufficient reliable sources cited in the initial stub of the article when I created it earlier this evening, they have grown substantially in the few hours since as other users have added more sources. And, yes, you did try to address the problem of dead links on the talk page, but as I already explained above your answer misses the point. You're trying to solve the problem of all the dead links that deletion would create; I'm explaining that the very fact that there is a problem at all suggests that we shouldn't be deleting this, as other articles clearly viewed this subject as notable enough to link.TheOther Bob 03:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOtherBob: At the time I'm leaving this comment, RS have not been added to substantiate notability. There's a maximum of two brief pieces on the crash (the UPI newswire source is duplicated; I can't view the Times source to check that it isn't another duplication), and everything else is extreme local news. We have specific guidelines about this sort of thing! With regard to the dead links, I don't know how to make you understand that other people creating links does not bind us, boulder-like, to their poor understanding of notability guidelines in perpetuity. We really can just remove the links to articles that are deleted for not meeting our standards. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your position that all the other people who created links to this article must have had a "poor understanding of notability guidelines" is... interesting. But in any event the mere fact that all those purportedly-wrongheaded people expected an article on this topic suggests that there should be an article on this topic. Nor is your belated attempt to shoehorn this into "One Event" particularly helpful. In a wildly abstract way we could suggest that the event for which this person is known is the Vietnam War, but unless you think the Vietnam War article should be millions of words long -- and every other article on a war likewise all-inclusive -- articles on notable people who played a role in the war will remain entirely normal and appropriate. Finally, as shown in the article, this person's death was covered on the front page of the San Francisco Examiner, and in newspapers in places such as Tampa Bay and Dayton, Ohio (just based on the sources identified in the few hours this article has existed -- more seem to be added every time I look). While you suggest that these articles are somehow duplicative, we don't need to debate that because the very fact that newspapers in San Francisco, Tampa Bay, and Dayton -- and likely many other places -- thought this person's death to be worth prominently reporting is fatal to your attempt to describe it as "extreme local news." (And, for that matter, when we talk about extremely local sources, we're not usually talking about newspapers serving 500,000 person metropolitan areas, as even the "local" papers do in this case.) Likewise, your claim that the articles focus solely on the crash rather than the nurses is just incorrect; the articles focus on both the crash and the nurses' biographies. In short, there just is not a credible argument for deletion.TheOther Bob 04:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"belated"...I've stated repeatedly from the beginning that Drazba is not notable and that dying does not make someone inherently notable. You also don't appear to understand how newswires such as UPI work (the same wire article reprinted in three cities is not widespread coverage). I doubt I'm going to be able to persuade you, so I'm going to stop here, but I would appreciate it if moving forward, you would not make false claims about the sources in your attempt to claim notability for this individual. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, belated -- your original argument under WP:LOCALFAME didn't work, so you belatedly tried to pivot to WP:ONEEVENT... which also didn't work. Your definition of "widespread coverage" also misses the mark; the fact that editors in San Francisco and Tampa Bay think someone is notable fatally undermines your attempt to claim that only people in Pennsylvania would think so. Finally, I note your accusation that I've somehow made "false claims" about the sources; all I can say is that your reliance on insults and false accusations says far more about you than it does about me, and that even a casual reviewer of the sources will see that your accusation is just lashing-out with no truth behind it. Creating an article on a historical figure for the good of the encyclopedia shouldn't mean facing this sort of accusation, and it saddens me that you'd stoop to it. I don't know if you're just having a bad day or if you truly think this is an acceptable way to behave, but I do hope you'll do better in the future -- and if you are just having a crappy day, then... I mean, hell, we all have them, so I sincerely hope you'll have a better one tomorrow. TheOther Bob 05:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll help rebuild it from sources (which are not difficult to find). Penny Richards (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above. There was apparently a movie made where she had an important part (or rather, an actor potraying her). Important Vietnam history. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, as the article has been substantially improved since the nomination for deletion. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as RS could be found and it complies with GNG.WikiAviator (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not many local heroes get proposed for a national stamp. "Whereas 8 women gave their lives while serving in the Armed Forces in Vietnam, including First Lieutenant Sharon Ann Lane, Second Lieutenant Pamela Dorothy Donovan, Lieutenant Colonel Annie Ruth Graham, Captain Mary Therese Klinker, Second Lieutenant Carol Ann Elizabeth Drazba, Second Lieutenant Elizabeth Ann Jones, Captain Eleanor Grace Alexander, and First Lieutenant Hedwig Diane Orlowski" Victuallers (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. IphisOfCrete (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notablility is established in article IMO and the sources available. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saloni Heart Foundation[edit]

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

No notability, fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. The only coverage found through Google is of the story covered by the two sources given in the article (not three: the content on two of the three pages cited is identical): a single instance of this organization making generous provision for a needy girl in India. Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Google search turns up almost nothing. Complete failure of WP:GNG. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful for the input, and appreciate the point. I have cited additional sources but recognize that while they each carry slightly different reportage, the core story is the same. However, may I submit that 1) the notability of the Foundation has been recognized by the notability of the media outlets, viz., Business Standard, The Tribune, Jagran, etc., 2) the members of the Foundation are themselves notable enough to have Wikipedia pages of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevashishSarkar (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added two more sources carrying the same Press Trust of India story as two of the original three. Even thirty news sites carrying the same press agency article count as at most one qualifying source. And all these source are reporting on the same single situation. Notability requires evidence of sustained coverage. A single incidence of a needy young woman getting financial aid from an organization isn't a notable event. Largoplazo (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Largoplazo (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and only has trivial coverage. Fails to meet GNG.--WikiAviator (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flazio[edit]

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

Not notable. For previous discussions, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_346#Flazio DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources include a self-published Forbes article that was misleadingly characterized. Little to indicate noteworthiness. Dorama285 00:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails WP:GNG; and apparently doesn't look much notable enough (at least based on my research) to be kept, despite having approximate notability. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chouïa cinema[edit]

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

I haven't been able to locate any reliable reviews or other independent content about this documentary. Everything I've pulled up has been short, database-entry style pages, no critical commentary. I don't speak French so I can only search by Google Translate, so I may have missed French sources. I'm happy to withdraw if sources are located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 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 redirect to Restorative justice. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restorative justice in social work[edit]

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

The vast majority of the current article is WP:OFFTOPIC info about restorative justice (RJ). When I consulted sources, I find that most of them are merely seeking to introduce social workers to RJ. Gumz discusses the history of social work in the criminal justice system and hopes that RJ will inspire social workers to return to the field, van Wormer says RJ is compatible with social work values. For other sources, see van Wormer 2002 and esp. Gumz & Grant's review. Some RJ practitioners are social workers and some social workers incorporate RJ theories and practices into their work.[46] I don't see sources with enough content for me to write a decent article. Daask (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Restorative justice. The article is clearly WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that said I am not sure if it has any content worth preserving not already covered in Restorative justice.--Staberinde (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:44, 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 merge to Stagecoach in Oxfordshire. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Gold bus route S2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN bus route. Cant find any notability, no major established sources other than operator sources, each make it look like an advert. One source related to a route change, following a dispute; WP:ROTM. Previous AfD does bring up some points but nothing that warrants needing its own article. Each can be explained on the (essentially) parent article Stagecoach Gold. Nightfury 12:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 12:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 12:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stagecoach in Oxfordshire. There is not the significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow us to write a proper article per WP:WHYN. It seems the Stagecoach Gold article would only ever list this route, whereas Stagecoach in Oxfordshire seems more amenable to the inclusion of additional information related to Oxford.----Pontificalibus 15:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stagecoach in Oxfordshire per above editor and nom. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article had an AfD four months ago and the consensus was to keep the article (and it identified sources that could be used to justify keeping the article). The nominator themselves doesn't even suggest deletion, they suggest merging. It is not good faith to make another nomination so soon afterwards and I ask the nominator to withdraw the AfD in good faith - if you want a merger discussion, you should do so at the article's talk page. Bookscale (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bookscale I'm suggesting deletion on notability, not merging. I'll agree my description wasn't thought out that well Nightfury 08:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous reasoning on the first nomination. The article still isn't notable (as most bus route articles are not) and the previous outcome suggested improving the article based on questionable sources that have yet to be provided. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stagecoach in Oxfordshire per the above. There is no justification to delete something when a merge will improve the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 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 10:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tinnama Padukunnama, Tellarinda[edit]

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

Undeveloped, undersourced article. Fails: WP:Notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any notability or even if the film was released, although social media sources suggest a release in 2008. Searches reveal the usual raft of social media and advertising. The whole video is available to watch on YouTube but nothing that I could find to suggest notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:43, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Scott Edell[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. I couldn't find reliable sources discussing him in detail. --Pontificalibus 07:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 07:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus Thanks for the feedback. I am going to go back and resolve this issue to prevent the deletion. --DaJerm (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus I have since gone through the entry and cleaned it up considerably, deleting non-relevant information and non-verifiable sources. --DaJerm (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article adheres to the Biographies of living persons guidelines. I recommend this discussion to be closed. DaJerm (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation, after resolving issues presented, is to keep the article. --DaJerm (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe Can you explain further why this is being relisted again? The article has been sufficiently altered from the original to adhere to the biographies of a living person criteria. I do not understand why it has been relisted again rather than the discussion being closed. --DaJerm (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DaJerm, there is not clear consensus to keep the article. Right now you are the only one arguing to keep it. In addition, many of the sources used are not reliable (Forbes contributors, youtube, and imdb; see WP:RSP). We need an analysis of the reliable sources to establish that there is significant coverage of the subject. b uidhe 06:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe thank you for the clarification and linking to WP:RSP. That makes sense and I will cite appropriate sources moving forward and will adjust the page accordingly. --DaJerm (talk) 17:04, 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Hussain[edit]

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

A rather promotional article full of external links to the subject's work on YouTube (some of which I've trimmed). Examining the sources more closely, there's very little except for obviously recycled press releases (brief, similarly-worded articles announcing the release of a song). There are no claims to notability that I can see via, WP:NMUSICIAN, and I'm not convinced the sourcing is there for a WP:GNG pass. (Note if searching for sources that there is a notable Egyptian writer of the same name) GirthSummit _(blether) 10:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth, Thanks for reviewing my first article Taha Hussain, It's nice to have someone as experienced as you give it a look and review it. All the noted points are valid. I am new to Wikipedia and want to learn more from you, Maybe i did overuse the article links and did not provide relevant references for the article. I'm currently managing Taha Hussain and i need to create his page on wikipedia. (will appreciate all the help i can get).

also please note: The egyption writer pointed out at the deletion discussion is spelled "Taha Hussein". Talalhshah (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talalhshah - thanks for pointing out the correct spelling of the Egyptian writer - his article was the first thing that came up when I Googled Taha Hussain, I overlooked the fact that the spellings are different. If you are managing the subject of this article, you need to make yourself familiar with our WP:COI guidelines and our WP:PAID policy, which forms part of the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, and which you appear to be in breach of. You are strongly discouraged from editing areas where you have a conflict of interest, and are required to make formal declaration of the conflict in one of the ways outlined at those links. Please read those pages, and make the necessary declarations, before editing further. You must not edit his page any further, even after you've made the declarations. (Forgot to sign, repinging Talalhshah) GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Talalhshah: Have publications (non-gossip newspapers, magazines, etc.) reviewed him, talked about his music, interviewed him, etc.? Can you provide us with links to these articles? feminist (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering the non-response of the subject's supposed manager (who should be more aware of any coverage than anyone else) and the inability to find sources otherwise. feminist (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Buidhe I understand wanting to have a clear consensus, but in light of WP:NOQUORUM, do you really think that leaving this open for another week was necessary here? The only person who has indicated a desire to keep this article is its author, who clearly has a conflict of interest (they are the subject's manager) and who should therefore not have published this article in mainspace in the first place. I can understand Sandstein's original relist, given that feminist had asked a question which had not been addressed, but since they have now opined towards deletion I really don't think that a relist was necessary or beneficial here. I hope that in a week's time, anyone considering making a NAC will bear RELISTBIAS in mind. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and no new reliable sources have been presented. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:09, 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. Sandstein 11:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over-arcing[edit]

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

WP:GNG WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:NOTTEXTBOOK StringRay (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be better for the nominator to state the reason for deletion in English. In particular I can't see any relevance for WP:NOT PAPER here. Having got that off my chest this is clearly not a notable topic. I can't find any reliable sources that use this term in this manner, rather than contain an accidental juxtaposition of the words "over" and "arcing", apart from the patent linked in the article which is a primary source. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just a gnome and have never nominated something for deletion before and wasn't sure what to write. (Have removed WP:NOT PAPER.) You expressed precisely my thoughts, though. I stumbled upon the entry because I was Googling the difference between "overarcing" and "overarching". The latter is correct usage. The former is a non-word except for this specific engineering thing, which is definitely not notable. StringRay (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:42, 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 no consensus. Based on the comments in the discussion, a merge proposal might be a more effective solution than a renomination here. RL0919 (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.-Mexico border crisis[edit]

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

Clearly biased page written from someone with an axe to grind. No attempt at providing differing viewpoints. Spelling and grammar errors. Also this topic has been covered on several other Wiki pages - no need for a new page. WisDom-UK (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Best case scenario is to merge into a real article as it is a notable subject. ⌚️ (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Which other "real article" should it be merged into? AfD is not cleanup, nominator’s objection seems more WP:POV based than anything, so the best case scenario is to improve the article first unless there’s some obvious existing article it should be merged with, that I’m missing. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable topic. The article needs a lot of work, WP:SOFIXIT. This at least has reliable sources and is a far cry from WP:TNT. Yes, there is some overlap, but I don't think it should be merged with US-Mexico border or Trump administration family separation policy because some sources do argue that the southern border situation is a crisis,[47][48][49] with asylum applications up tenfold [50]. Oddly, most of the sources referring to a "crisis" are right wing media. Maybe could be renamed Late 2010s United States–Mexico border crisis to differentiate from other US Mexico border incidents. b uidhe 05:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no border crisis. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic in general is clearly notable on a long-term basis, the question is just whether or not there's already an article on it under another name. We do have very detailed articles on Immigration policy of Donald Trump and on Trump administration family separation policy specifically. These cover the US response to the crisis, which appears to be the focus of the disputed article. Information on the causes of migration and on the migrants is located in articles like Central American migrant caravans and 2014 American immigration crisis. It is possible that these articles need to be interwoven better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Immigration policy of Donald Trump, but keep history of the page. The content is mostly valid, but it should be merged to other pages as commented by others above. This does not seem to be a subject distinct and notable enough to keep, even as a political slogan. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalawana Central College (National School)[edit]

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

Non-notable Sri Lanka secondary school. Reliable sources not found after a search on both English and Sinhalese names. b uidhe 17:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 17:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 17:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources found - satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Dan arndt (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the sources added are government websites and databases, not WP:INDEPENDENT coverage. The other one is good but it's not enough by itself to keep per WP:NSCHOOL. b uidhe 05:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - additional references added. Dan arndt (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these sources don't mention the subject at all. And this is just a passing mention. I only see the one source (this one) that has significant independent coverage. b uidhe 02:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to those references (which I didn't add & I question their relevance) but to the Sinhalese references and the debate in the Sri Lankan Parliament. BTW the Daily News article was supporting the fact that Dayananda Somasundara was an alumni of the school. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in The Sunday Times is significant coverage and enough to warrant an article in my opinion. That in conjunction with the government sources should be enough. We have to remember that coverage in non-Western countries is more limited due to lack of publications in comparison to Western countries, and a little leeway should be given in order to prevent systemic bias in our encyclopedic coverage.4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 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) 10:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Stolarczyk[edit]

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

It's not clear how this individual meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources given mention him, but are not really about him, and I can't find multiple reliable sources that contain significant discussion of the subject. ... discospinster _talk 01:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be deleted since the sources given don’t prove his notability, in fact I’m surprised it was accepted as an article in the first place. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 01:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 01:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no claim to notability and I can't find sources to support WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 06:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:00, 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 merge to Vambu Sandai. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Putrudu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article shouldn't exist. It is a dubbed version of a Tamil film. All sources (Oneindia, Indiaglitz) fail WP: Notability for films. DragoMynaa (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge. This movie is a dubbed version of Vambu Sandai and not an independent film. Hence, merge. The9Man | (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, only minor differences imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lovelace[edit]

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

This fails WP:NAUTHOR despite the bold claims here.

The sources are largely unreliable, primary/interviews (some written by a high school student!) or just a listing. The primary claim here is that winning Goodreads Choice Awards makes an individual notable, but the problem with this is that there is no standard for "winning" as everyone and anyone can vote - even multiple times. As per our own article on this, The Goodreads Choice Awards is a yearly award program, first launched on Goodreads in 2009. Users are able to vote for the books that Goodreads has nominated and are also able to nominate books of their choosing, released in the given year. The majority of books that Goodreads itself nominates are from Goodreads authors. The final voting round collects the top 10 books from 20 different categories.

I am also nominating The Princess Saves Herself in This One for the same reason. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has independent coverage and the fact that anyone can vote for Goodreads awards doesn't take away from the fact that she wont it. I've added a few more refs and made some minor text revisions. I'm not as convinced the The Princess Saves Herself in This One merits it's own page - partial merge into the Lovelace page might be appropriate. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - User is not notable and sources are not credible. BonkHindrance (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes WP:GNG, with non-trivial coverage from Bustle (magazine), Affinity Magazine, Boston Globe, Study Breaks and others. ~~Given Wikipedia's track record with topics related to women, I do wonder if this page would have been nominated for deletion had the author or subject matter been different.~~ IphisOfCrete (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, I was able to turn up references in Marie Claire, New York Times, Financial Times, American Booksellers Association, etc. I still can't see a reason to delete this. IphisOfCrete (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your insinuation that it has anything to do with the fact that she's female is nothing short of a personal attack and completely absurd. The Globe article isn't even about her.Praxidicae (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae Mea culpa, I didn't actually look at who posted the nom or else I would have held my tongue or said something else. I get a bit impassioned in these things sometimes and I'm sorry. IphisOfCrete (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of two articles are nominated for deletion herein, Amanda Lovelace and The Princess Saves Herself in This One. Commentary above after the nomination is mostly about the main Amanda Lovelace article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for two reasons, one good and one...not so good as a matter of policy, but perhaps useful color. First, the good one: There are multiple reliable sources reporting on her and her work -- and while the discussions vary in depth and length, when your Google results for someone start returning the Financial Times, New York Times, Harvard Crimson, etc., it's pretty hard to claim that there aren't sufficient sources for a Wikipedia article. Second, she passes the "I, a random person, have heard of this" test. Now, that test isn't great policy for soooooo many reasons. I'm not seriously advocating a rule under which notability would be tied to what I, a random person, have heard of. But if I, a random person, went "oh, yeah, I've seen her books and read coverage of her somewhere" when I saw her name... well, maybe that was random chance, but there's also a decent chance it's because she's notable and thus appearing in media. When that's confirmed by looking to the sources, that suggests a keep. TheOther Bob 15:17, 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 keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ismet Saz[edit]

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

Nominated for notability concern. Dr. Coal^Message 15:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill restaurateur. Not on the List of Michelin 3-star restaurants nor any James Beard Foundation awards, which would make him notable. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Michelin Guide article doesn't mention a guide that covers Turkey; James Beard Foundation Awards are US-only and not well known in the rest of the world. Peter James (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources include Hürriyet and Time Out. Peter James (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Clearly notable. Tons of articles in Turkish news. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Here are the sources of ismet newspaper [51], [52]or magazines [53][54][55][56][57] or his book [58], these source are from magazines or famous newspaper or news website. thank in advance.--FCBlinder (talk) 19:54, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refael Kruskal[edit]

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

BLP with no decent evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. It looks like the Tikva organization is using Wikipedia as their server to post a bio of their CEO. All the external links are primary sources. It would be better to start a page for Tikva Odessa. Yoninah (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a prominent figure of the Jewish community in Ukraine. Google provides authoritative sources about the person in Russian language. Although I don’t rule out that the author uses Wikipedia as the server of his organization. You need to edit and add sources to the article. Dizengoff TLV (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A biography of a living person needs references. They dont have to be in English. Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLPPROD unless sources are added. b uidhe 02:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:RESUME. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:BIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:28, 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 Deleted. A9 speedy deletion (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Mourning (album)[edit]

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

It's difficult to state that an album by a band is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia when the band doesn't have an article themselves; the band formerly had an article, but it was deleted in 2016 via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brutality (band) (2nd nomination). Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion A9. Mattg82 (talk) 00:50, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akata[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't think this belongs here. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Moonythedwarf your reason for deleting the "Akata" Wikipedia webpage, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, is completely invalid. The word "Akata" is an African slang that unfortunately has a negative connotation and misconception. If you were to search other racial charged slangs you will find their respective pages. Therefore I ask that this one remain. Thank you -David8592779 — Preceding unsigned comment added by David8592779 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTDEF and WP:GNG. There are a bunch of sources online but nothing that meets WP:RS. After the article is deleted, a redirect could be created to Nnedi Okorafor whose book series has this name. b uidhe 02:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the creation of such a redirect is a good idea, as there are other entities with the name mentioned here and there that would come up in the search engine, and anyway Akata is apparently not the name of a book series but part of the name of two books. – Uanfala (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Buidhe. The article's sources are insufficient to justify having an article. One is Urban Dictionary, which is not a reliable source. The other is a dictionary of the Yoruba language from 1858, which defines the word "akata" as "a kind of wild cat", not as "black panther" or "jackal" as this article states, nor does it mention the slang meaning described here which may not have arisen by 1858. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. And since it's apparently a misunderstood term, redirecting to list of ethnic slurs doesn't apply. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find anything except user generated contents for this term! KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Living love^{( Talk to me)} 00:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just a word. Analog Horror, (Communicate) 06:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I recommend a speedy deletion for this article, It is absolutely waste, it has nothing to do with Knowledge, An@ss_koko^(speak)^(war) 21:06, 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.