Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 March 3 March >

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jay[edit]

Brandon Jay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable businessman. His only apparent claim to notability is founding a company deleted via AfD a while back and appears to have gone under several years ago. GPL93 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Most of the references are referencing the defunct company. Independent Google search yielded little to no coverage. If the notability is contingent on a company deemed not notable, is the subject notable at all then? — BriefEdits (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Subject is not a notable figure. As mentioned, article seems to be built on the foundation of his company, which is also not notable. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 13:16, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Grudzinski[edit]

Norbert Grudzinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, no secondary sources found online or in article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable football referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Referee who has overseen nearly 100 2. Bundesliga matches, and at least one Bundesliga match (replacing the starting referee in the second half). There is some online coverage most of which is routine, but the interview for Otto GmbH and the SWP article probably get us close to GNG-compliance. It appears that Bundesliga referees have a fair amount of coverage, and Grudzinski is on the cusp with most of his appearances as assistant referee. Jogurney (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since he is an employee of Otto, I think we need to discount that coverage, but I found a Die Welt article which is significant coverage and added that as well. Jogurney (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG, nominator has clearly not complied with WP:BEFORE given patently false claims there are no online sources. GiantSnowman 20:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's pretty obvious nom did no WP:BEFORE. Several sources have been provided to meet GNG. There are probably more German language sources but I don't speak German. Smartyllama (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, Snowman Please withdraw that remark. I always do WP:BEFORE and did on this occasion.
I didn’t say there were no sources at all - clearly there are - but the ones I could find are press releases, interviews and mere passing mentions which do not count towards GNG. I’m happy to stand corrected if you can find anything more substantial. Until then, please remember to assume good faith even if you don’t agree with my viewpoint. WP:AGF Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be notable. Perhaps in future we should consider referees with years of work in the top 5 to 10 leagues in the world inherently notable. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could only find that he made a single substitute's appearance as a referee (he has plenty as an assistant) in the Bundesliga, and the sources demonstrating GNG compliance are fairly weak, so I don't think this AfD supports the idea that refereeing in the top 5-10 leagues is inherently notable. Jogurney (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. Wm335td (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 03:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gagelmann[edit]

Peter Gagelmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, no secondary sources found online or in article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:Cardiffbear88 the three secondary source in the existing de article? one, two, three? Nfitz (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz #1 and #2 are passing mentions, and #3 is a press release. Not sure these would add anything to notability. Happy to be corrected if other sources can be found. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article meets WP:GNG and should be expanded, not deleted. Gagelmann officiated 214 matches across 16 seasons of the Bundesliga, one of the most prominent football leagues in the world. There are clearly secondary sources available, as mentioned above. S.A. Julio (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The referee has refereed in one of the top leagues of the world and their would have to be some more sources than the three to better improve the notability of this referee. HawkAussie (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG, nominator has clearly not complied with WP:BEFORE given patently false claims there are no online sources. GiantSnowman 20:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Giant please see my remarks for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert Grudzinski which also apply here. I always do WP:BEFORE and did not find anything to indicate notability - which does not include passing mentions and press releases.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be notable. Perhaps in future we should consider referees with years of work in the top 5 to 10 leagues in the world inherently notable. Nfitz (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article about football referee who worked in the German top division for 15 years and is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (I added information from AZ and Aktiv to the article, and Focus covered a controversy involving Gagelmann in depth as well). Jogurney (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. Wm335td (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Creamery[edit]

San Francisco Creamery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Business notable for only a single event. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Article doesn't even pass WP:GNG with coverage. — BriefEdits (talk) 02:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 03:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine: Origins[edit]

Wolverine: Origins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article, no evidence of notability as a comic book series Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these are amazing sources, but it's on par with the vast majority of articles about Marvel titles. I don't want to point at them and say "Other Stuff Exists", but I'm trying to figure out what the guideline is, and what a good example of a well-sourced article would be. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archie Meets the Punisher, Archie vs. Predator, Elmer (comics), Farmhand (comics), Invisible Republic (comics), Kill or Be Killed (comics), Lazarus (comics), Rachel Rising, Resident Alien (comics), Revival (comics), Sleepless (comics), and Ultra are a few examples of well-sourced articles about comic series. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that collectively these demonstrate notability. I'll put these sources on the article page in a Further reading section, so that people who want to improve the article can use them as sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:54, 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 keep. Sandstein 11:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Rothenberg[edit]

Stephanie Rothenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see how this meets WP:CREATIVE DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CSD as a WP:COPYRIGHT violation, per WP:TNT as too difficult to fix, and WP:TOOSOON (even if the fixes were made her career hasn't taken off yet). Bearian (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The copyvios are minor and fixable at this point in time; the page reported had three phrases tagged, one is "performance, installation, and networked media" and the other two are titles/names. With regard to notability, her work is mentioned in several books including: Media Art and the Urban Environment Engendering Public Engagement with Urban Ecology by Francis T. Marchese; Art In Odd Places: Sign: Sign By Ed Woodham, Erin Donnelly, Radhika Subramaniam; Thinking Through Digital Media: Transnational Environments and Locative Places By D. Hudson, P. Zimmermann; there are more. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Stephanie_Rothenberg gives a very low rating. How serious is this alleged copyvio really? Can it not be address by editing? Vexations (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vexations: It was trivial, and I've fixed it. Anything that is flagged now is either the name of a work, or an institution, or a position. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is real encyclopedic content worth WP:PRESERVEing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I saw four GBooks sources, and a couple middling quality reviews. I believe there are more as she has collaborated with many other artists, and the GBooks results describe such collaborative works that are not currently included in the article. She was also a visiting scholar at Bowdoin College, if that counts. I added two sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see enough sources. Borgia Venedict (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Mary Mark Ockerbloom, TonyTheTiger, ThatMontrealIP, and Borgia Vendict that there is enough to establish notability. When I checked the copyvio, there was only 5.7% - very low percentage. Netherzone (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix WP:NOTCLEANUP RS exists. Some editors who came before me have begun cleanup and ThatMontrealIP has added sources. It is best that we WP:PRESERVE. Wm335td (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Mitroshina[edit]

Alexandra Mitroshina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article represents biography of a living person that does not meet Wikipedia's notability (People) guideline as well as general notability guideline. Article's content mainly relies on primary sources or sources that are not considered reliable, which makes it impossible to verify most of the information presented. Juliette Han (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be an influencer whose claim to fame (besides promoting herself in every corner of the Internet) is that she was banned from Ukraine for promoting the invasion. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. --Mitte27 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most sources are unreliable or interviews, there are only [4] and [5] which are ok, and they do not look like significant coverage. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. She is a notable blogger and political activist (against violence in Russian society) and easily passes GNG, but most sources about her were published in Russian and Ukrainian languages. The sources are, for example, RFE/RL projects [6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. Note that the whole articles are specifically about her (not anything in passing), and the last article was entitled ("The week in Crimea: Putin in Crimea, but Mitroshina in Kiev"). Other multiple RS also tell a lot about her, in detail, for example [11], [12] (this is Meduza), and o on [13]. Of course the page about her was deleted in Russian Wikipedia - because she is a notable political activist. Some English language publications, specifically about her: Time, BBC, IBT, RFE/RL, MSN, NBC, Reuters, and a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a Russian-speaking member of Wikipedia community, I want to confirm that this person does not pass WP:GNG even regarding the previous comment. Most of the media mentions appear to be paid content, thus these sources can not be used to prove notability. The article was deleted in Russian Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy only, none of the political reasons have anything to do with that. Should also be mentioned that being a blogger or activist does not guarantee a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.Tulpan64 (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to notice that user Tulpan64 made only four edits in the project [14], specifically to vote "delete" here. One should not be an expert in Russian to realize that the publications by RFE/RL and Meduza above are NOT paid content. Yes, many good pages in Russian Wikipedia were deleted for purely political reasons, and certain pages are an outright disinformation. There is nothing one can do about it. This is the reason I never edit in Russian Wikipedia. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have never edited Russian Wikipedia yet you believe there is a political bias on its AfD? I would rather say it has more harsh rules, modelled on the rules of German Wikipedia, not on that of English Wikipedia. For example, we usually do not consider interviews for GNG and there is rather harsh inplementation of NOTNEWS principle. I am not sure whether Mitroshina is notable by the rules of Russian Wikipedia, but the sources mentioned on its AfD there do not indicate it in the slightest. If you believe it is wrong, you may open a review of AfD on ru:ВП:ВУС, but take care to read ru:ВП:АКТИВИСТЫ carefully. P. S. I would believe it very discriminatory and rude to suppose that Wikipedia where half the users is from a totalitarian country necessarily has a political bias. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a place to debate Russian WP (I know what I am talking about), however the deletion of her page there looked suspicious to me because she is so widely known: 2+ million subscribers and a lot of publications about her, even in English (now included). My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment. The reason for the action made was stated in the Edit summary. Please see WP:AFDDISCUSS - 'Behavior' - 'It is acceptable to correct the formatting in order to retain consistency with the bulleted indentation.' to understand why this edit is relevant. Personal references, such as assertions about someone's behavior, do not belong to any of Wikipedia's discussions. Juliette Han (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please check Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments. If I want to make a separate "comment" on an AfD, this is absolutely my right, is not it? But whatever. I am not going to edit war. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fixed content of the page by including references to Time, BBC, IBT, RFE/RL, MSN, NBC, Reuters and checked other references currently on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've looked into all the references added and still believe that the article's subject is not notable enough as per WP:GNG. Most of the sources primarily describe a specific movement against domestic violence in Russia, while the person in matter is only mentioned amongst other participants. It is therefore impossible to cover the whole biography of this person in a separate article. Moreover, I was not able to find any citations in these sources to back up most of the facts that are at the moment presented in the article. In this case, it's just not clear what is the basis for the assertion that this particular Internet personality should have a Wikipedia article written in English. Juliette Han (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Indeed, there were two women, her and Alena Popova who started it. Now included. I also referenced all details of her biography to a publication by RFE/RL. In any event, your initial justification for deletion ("Article's content mainly relies on primary sources or sources that are not considered reliable, which makes it impossible to verify most of the information presented.") do not longer apply. If you think any of the remaining sources on the page are not RS, please say, and I will fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is clear that the sources in the article are independent and reliable. Further discussion regarding whether the sources sufficiently discuss this particular individual should take place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, simply having a blog with more than 2 million subscribers should be enough already. And yes, the entire publications in mainstream newspapers are dedicated exclusively or mostly to her and a movement she initiated together with another women [18], [https://time.com/5636107/metoo-russia-womens-rights/[19]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are weak and unreliable? Time, BBC, IBT, RFE/RL, MSN, NBC, Reuters? My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Time, Reuters, NBC, BBB are weak and unreliable? May I ask what constitutes a reliable source? I do not believe this comment and those like them help judge consensus. there is room to discuss whether these sources adequately discuss the topic at hand (person) or solely discuss the movement in general with only passing mentions of the person. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not include it on the page, but refs #1 and #5 are mostly about a completely different controversy with her (not the movement against domestic violence), i.e. her expulsion from the Ukraine for visiting Crimea without getting the Ukrainian visa (there was a protest during her visit to Ukraine, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even without evaluating the Russian sources, which I can't do, there's clearly enough reliably sourced material for an article here, which is the point of our notability standards. At least the International Business Times piece ([20]) is directly about Mitroshina, and relatively in-depth. The other English-language articles, also by reliable sources, are more about her campaign than herself, but she is discussed throughout, not just in passing mentions. We can perhaps discuss whether Mitroshina herself or her campaign should be the formal topic of the article, but taken together they certainly qualify for an article. At worst, the content could be merged into a broader-scoped article about the apparently state-sanctioned domestic violence in Russia. Sandstein 20:18, 11 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. Sandstein 11:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infomedia Nusantara[edit]

Infomedia Nusantara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merely advertising content with a long history of COI edits. I cannot find any notable secondary sources, other than passing mentions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Military Reserve[edit]

Pennsylvania Military Reserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inactive and, to be honest, non-notable militia organization. I've searched high and low, but this was the best source I could find on the group. They're defunct now regardless. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Exact membership numbers are difficult to determine, the PAGRF may number anywhere from a few dozen to a few hundred dues paying members, concentrated largely in the suburban counties surrounding Philadelphia. " lolololol Reywas92Talk 21:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:ADMASK. This is really just a promotional article... ==BonkHindrance (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is nowhere near as organized as units like Georgia State Defense Force--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a small-time militia that wants to be more important. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:07, 8 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. Can be draftified via WP:REFUND if somebody really cares. Sandstein 20:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Grind (coffeeshop)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Daily Grind (coffeeshop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGCRIT BonkHindrance (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor rankings and minor coverage. Nothing in-depth. Fails WP:NCORP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. I have found some substantial newspaper coverage, e.g. Dave Dreeszen, "Daily Grind opens northside store", Sioux City Journal (March 7, 2004), p. H3; William Ewert, "Coffee not the only thing brewing at The Daily Grind coffee shop", The Ogden Signpost (January 4, 1995), p. 6. However, it is not clear from these article that the "Daily Grind" referenced in the articles is part of the same franchise, or just a common name for coffee shops with multiple locations. BD2412 T 18:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pennsylvania locations by per capita income[edit]

List of Pennsylvania locations by per capita income (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking at the list at “Category:United States locations by per capita income”, every other state has places listed by county and not by settlement - there’s a reason for this! This data is unsourced, presumably out of date, and unmanageable at its current size. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's fairly obviously all from the 2000 census and easily sourced, but yes, it's raw data that doesn't need an article in this form. Reywas92Talk 19:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per RAWDATA, plus out of date. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Total keep consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 16:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Asia Golf Circuit[edit]

1976 Asia Golf Circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge into Asia Golf Circuit. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep – per normal high level sports competition seasons; meets WP:EVENT (e.g. per WP:INDEPTH – season covered extensively in newsmedia in many countries and reviewed in magazines & books such as The World of Professional Golf, 1977 (the definitive golf almanac) by Mark McCormack). Also, the circuit ran for over 35 years, so ultimately there will be over 35 season articles – the first of them have only just started to be created. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important golf tour. Definitely worthy of season-by-season articles, per WP:GOLF norm. Nigej (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. Tewapack (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above with the other two as I think it was a pre-cursor to the Asian Tour which started in 1994 (the Asian Golf Circuit ended in 1999). HawkAussie (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Materialscientist (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aashish Yadav[edit]

Aashish Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

vanity spam by a non notable "entrepreneur" sourced entirely to fake news outlets and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 20:08, 2 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. Sandstein 12:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shimmer Sensing[edit]

Shimmer Sensing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially advertising, the contents is a first, a catalog of their available devices, second a list of every possible field to which the device might possibly at some time in the future conceivably be relevant, the remainder is a list of unimportant prizes DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 2 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. Sandstein 12:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of management accounting and financial accounting[edit]

Comparison of management accounting and financial accounting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNDUE, based on single source, disputable, pointless comparison of vaguely related things, like Comparison of Quarterly report and Annual report. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This difference can be discussed in a paragraph at the beginning of the two articles. Management accounting is for internal users, financial is prepared for external users. This can be briefly explained in the two separate articles. No need for a WP:FORK. Hog Farm (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - basing an article on a single source de facto makes it original research. The chart might be a copyright violation. In theory this could be fixed, but I don't know where to start. Ping me if you have any ideas. Bearian (talk) 13:35, 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 keep. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Golberstein[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Leah Golberstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the specific notability criteria for academics and for creative people. I don't see where her gallery exhibits rise to the level of significance called for by WP:NARTIST. Further, limited coverage in independent sources. There is the Minnesota Public Radio piece, which is relatively in depth, but it's the only one cited. (The others are either her gallery or a university where she was part of an exhibition.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: could you revisit your !vote, based on the two collections as mentioned below?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:26, 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 and redirect to Martinsville, Virginia. Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Village of Martinsville[edit]

Village of Martinsville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page doesn't seem to meet WP:N guidelines. It has many citations to local sources, but all seem to be local news sources that only talk about businesses opening or closing at this apparently unremarkable small-town shopping center. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless there is a plausible merge target. Appears to have ample independent coverage. Notability is not remarkability. On a broader point, notability is expressly about how information should be organized on the wiki (i.e. what gets its own article vs. being addressed within a broader article), not whether it should be included at all. The real problem seems to be that, here as in so many other parts of the project, we are missing multiple important links in the topical chain. For example, this would merge nicely into Retail in Martinsville, Virginia or Commercial real estate in Martinsville, Virginia. But until articles on those important and indisputably notable topics are created, I see no reason to delete this one, which has clearly benefited from thoughtful and conscientious editing over many years. -- Visviva (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see this as passing muster on WP:INDISCRIMINATE (I guess here we're approaching the matter from the classic mill vs. snowflake debate), but I can see the thoughtful editing. I wonder if it might be worthwhile to, instead of outright deleting this information, merge its contents with Martinsville, Virginia? I'm not entrenched in deleting it altogether - I just don't see any good reason for it to have its own article. Martinsville is not a large city, so the "Retail in" articles you proposed would likely not be necessary when that information could instead just be included in sections of Martinsville's page. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is exactly the level of coverage determined sufficient to establish notability for a shopping mall. Notability is not "remarkability", and notability is not temporary. There's enough here that a merge would be unwarranted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete shopping centers and malls are not taken as notable by default, and what we have here is routine local coverage, exactly what one would expect. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a couple of run of the mill retail buildings. All local coverage with local audience, routine local business news, just as they cover the Coach's Restaurant down the street. Many Kroger groceries and OfficeMax and Marshalls stores are stand-alone buildings, I don't see why it's suddenly notable that they share a roof here. This is a strip mall, Shopping mall#Community mall (under 350,000 sqft), or small Shopping mall#Power center, an ode to the great American parking lot, rather than a perhaps more notable regional or superregional center. This appears to be the smallest of all the malls linked in the navbox by a decent margin. Reywas92Talk 09:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what place in all that tl;dr do you have a policy based argument? Your argument is "it's not notable because I say it's not notable" and "it's too small". I wasn't aware size was a factor in whether or not anything is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fails WP:NCORP (yes, a mall is a corporate organization) and WP:NBUILD on account of all coverage being local and routine. It's absolutely indiscriminate to have articles on small WP:COOKIECUTTER shopping centers. You know damn well the difference between this and the much larger and older mall in Florida, with a wider audience and yes more dedicated coverage like [21] and [22] rather than just routine announcements of openings and closings. Wikipedia does not need an article on just any generic place where you can get your food, shoes, and gold clubs in one trip. Reywas92Talk 09:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sourcing to justify article. Article overall does need a re-write and sourcing improvements. Esw01407 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the cited articles are local in coverage and many of them mention Martinsville only in passing. For instance, "Belk celebrates 125 years in business" is about the store and only briefly mentions the mall as its current location; article would be essentially unchanged if the store was located somewhere else. Several other articles are of the same nature--a store is opening/closing/renaming and by the way, it happens to be located at the local mall. Glendoremus (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:N: notable topics are those which have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (bold for emphasis). In the absence of any non-local coverage, there is insufficient indication that this topic meets the criteria of significant attention by the world at large. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage here is routine press releases of store openings and closures and is not really about the Village of Martinsville itself but about the individual stores. Notability is not inherited, and these articles are mainly just tangentially related to the mall. Those articles about the mall itself fail the sourcing requirements at WP:AUD.4meter4 (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Premeditated Chaos. The coverages are WP:ROUTINE. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The9Man | (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, although article has numerous sources they appear to be mentions/routine/local ie. rebuilds/various tenants coming and going, where are the sources that lifts this mall above the day-to-day reporting, such as these, that all shopping centers receive? that said it may be useful to have a "redirect/merge" to a facilities section of Martinsville, Virginia? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Martinsville, Virginia. This is an example of a notable phenomena, the contraction of shopping malls in the US, but there is no reason to have this information in a separate article. Merging it into the article I linked would improve that article by explaining how this phenomenon effects the larger community. - llywrch (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dagger, Arizona[edit]

Dagger, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is actually the "Dagger Ranch": both the 2007 topo quad and this bankrupcy sale listing say so. Before it was built there were a couple of structures, but older maps don't give the area a name. There may be another Dagger Ranch gumming up the works. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources establishing this is a notable populated place. Reywas92Talk 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorized here by USGS as locale, not a populated place. Either way, nothing notable to be found. Glendoremus (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There were a number of opinions, but nobody except the nominator advocated deletion. A discussion on whether to keep, merge or redirect can be done away from the scope of AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Man in the Moon Stayed Up Too Late (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBOOK. As a fictional book, it only has the Shippey reference, and the coverage just doesn't seem to exist for a stand-alone article here. Hog Farm (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge short summary of this to Bree (where Prancing Pony has been merged). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. It is one of the poems included in that book, and, according to this article, that book was where this title was first used, so it makes more sense to use that as the target. Rorshacma (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain (probably as a redirect) to preserve attribution - see the page history, where this page was created on 22 March 2004 by Ausir with material from Hey Diddle Diddle. One of the major edits where there is a need to preserve attribution (since this material is germane to other articles) is this one from 21 January 2010 by Elphion. It might be simplest to just redirect back to Hey Diddle Diddle and to put relevant material in other articles, citing the relevant page histories for attribution. Carcharoth (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete, but any of several merge/redirect options might be appropriate. I noticed User:Abductive's comments in the previous AFD, and I found that he was correct. As a result, I've added another source to the article. I suspect that other editors could do the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I demonstrated in the previous AfD, there are analyses in scholarly sources. (Examples: D Marchesani - Mythlore, 1980; SM Deyo - Mythlore, 1986) The article also gets an average of 20 pageviews a day, suggesting that people are reading it. Deyo states that it was first published in Leeds's Yorkshire Poetry 2:19, October-November 1923, which means that it is not part of the Lord of the Rings, it is a standalone work. No merging is therefore appropriate. I am sorry that the nominator has made a series of errors, presumably out of ignorance, and they should withdraw this nomination. Abductive (reasoning) 19:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets, does not "fail" WP:NBOOK (and WP:GNG), anything written by Tolkien is notable ie. no. 5 - "5.The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable.", in addition, this poem is subject to multiple (two or more) non-trivial independent sources, on top of the two cited by Abductive above, there is also "The Man in the Moon: Structural Depth in Tolkien" by Thomas Honegger in Root and Branch: Approaches Towards Understanding Tolkien. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The best way to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings is to actually post the sources in the article, not just in the AfD discussions. :) I added the Marchesani, Honneger and Deyo sources to the page in a "Further reading" section. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Osmanoğlu family. (non-admin closure) buidhe 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu[edit]

Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Adding previous AFD and other article links even though this AFD has been open for several days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous related AFD which closed with "Merge [this article and many others in a list] to Osmanoğlu family:
Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]
For the sake of completeness:
Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Osmanoğlu family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can a qualified user continue this process for Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu? There doesn't seem to be anything at all justifying this individual as the subject of an article. The lead establishes her to be nothing other than a member of a family "descended from the Sultans who ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1299" to 1923, and descendant of Sultan Murad V; not uninteresting as it goes, but hardly enough to make her "relevant", surely? Online searches indicate nothing further to support her notability per the Wikipedia guidelines to which I referred.

The talk page has a 2011 notice that "References and evidence have been added to address notability issue", but the article itself fails to make clear why exactly she is notable, apart from there being an article on the Osmanoglu family and that her husband, Nicholas Sutton, has his own article also. The majority of her article (including virtually all the "Biography" section, the separate "Family Tree", and an "Ancestry" section, all of which combined give the strong impression of a self-aggrandising vanity article) is genealogical information, with her listed achievements being: a degree from the University of Exeter; a master's degree from SOAS, Univ. of London; spending "twenty years building up a property investment and development company alongside her husband"; and "now working on researching and writing historical novels on Ottoman history" (with a distinctly third-rate 'Daily News' source cited) Two similarly less-than-excellent sources are cited for the fact that they live in Sussex and she "spends the summers near Bodrum, Turkey".

Shoehorned in at the bottom is a section on the alleged increase in attention in Ottoman families, which seems to be intended to justify the article's existence despite the fact that the only relevance this has to her article is that she is from such a family. A documentary is mentioned in which, from the information given, she does not feature in any meaningful sense, as is the funeral of the last head of the Imperial Ottoman family (whose connection to the article subject, if any, is not stated). Many thanks for your assistance. 78.144.68.161 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not Burke's Peerage and there is no claim of notability here. I thought there might be a better article on tr.wiki with additional sources to support notability, but there isn't. An internet search does not throw up anything that looks like multiple reliable independent sources to me. Mccapra (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because someone's family was once powerful does not make them now notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with prejudice against re-creation to Osmanoğlu family but keep history as it might be useful in a future merge. "Redirect with prejudice against re-creation" means if there is no clear indication that the person qualifies for an article if someone tries to re-direct it, the page will be subject to reverting to a redirect and protected as needed. I don't see a need to "redirect and protect" now, an HTML comment at the top of the page pointing to this discussion should be enough to dissuade partisans from re-creating it without discussion. Editors who come along who have marginal evidence of WP:Notability can create a draft, which can be history-merged into the existing page if the draft is strong enough to be "likely" to survive a future AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters#TSR 2103 – MC2 – Monstrous Compendium Volume Two (1989). Editors can decide whether anything should be merged anywhere from the history. Sandstein 12:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hag (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Hag (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks any kind of independent notability. Pure gamecruft that is almost entirely primary sourced. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to e.g. List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters, where at least one of the two secondary sources the article contains now can be of benefit. Daranios (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to hag. This is just a particular case of the popular cultural conception of the magical kind of hag. BD2412 T 22:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nearly every source on the creatures are just game products. The few that are not are not close to being enough actual coverage that could sustain any kind of article, or support any information worth preserving. There is nothing to indicate why the D&D version of a hag is notable enough that it would need to be discussed on the main hag article as suggested above, so I see no reason to merge there. Rorshacma (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see comments along the lines that this is almost entirely primary sourced, or that nearly every source is a game product. However, it is not entirely primary sourced, so it can meet the much lower noteworthiness standards for inclusion in the parent article even if it wouldn't sustain an article on its own. It is, at least, a commentary on the continuing presence of the hag as a cultural concept that it has been included and expanded upon at various times in the most popular role playing game ever. BD2412 T 21:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Not seeing anything worthwile merging there, through no objections if someone wants to add to popculture that this was the n-th most something monster on some niche list, I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the article is certainly bog-standard fancruft, but two things make me hesitate to push the delete button: first, the section on publication history is well put-together and I don't see an obvious fan venue for this material; second, the Reception section has the critter as #3 of The 9 Scariest, Most Unforgettable Monsters From Dungeons & Dragons: if the taste of the author, Lisa Granshaw, is respected in the D&D community, that would count for me as an argument for inclusion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's general agreement that listicles do not constitute significant coverage if they are all that exist to demonstrate notability. Pretty much every fictional monster is going to be in at least one listicle at some point.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, the agreement is not general. In my opinion, that would depend on the amount and quality of content in listicle(s). A "listicle" is by definition an article, and the same criteria like for any other kind of article should apply. Daranios (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wellness Doctrines[edit]

The Wellness Doctrines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Article has had notability tags for almost a year. The most significant coverage the book appears to have received is the ABC article cited (which is not a great deal of discussion), but there is not significant coverage elsewhere that I can find. The Daily Telegraph article only has a small amount of coverage on the book. The Justice Katzmann talk was at the book launch itself, so is not a reliable source, the EventBrite talk is not a reliable source, and the book's website is not a reliable source. Bookscale (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There endorsements by people like Julian Burnside [23].
It has the standing of being formally launched in the Federal Court of Australia, by Justice Anna Katzmann [24]
The book series seems notable to me. Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more analysis of sources for SIGCOV and reliability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 7 days without a comment. Final relist - sources need analysis for SIGCOV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to Aoziwe's reasoning and citations, I've added several IRS citations and the article now seems to easily meet GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion has focused on Trini Kwan, and I don't see a reasonable prospect for consensus for deletion of that article. Discussion about any possible merger can continue on the article talk page. The other two articles have largely not been discussed here. If they are deemed still not notable, they should probably be renominated separately. Sandstein 12:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trini Kwan[edit]

Trini Kwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is almost all plot and this character only appeared in 1 1/2 seasons of one particular Power Ranger series and does not seem notable for an individual article, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Hammond and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisha Campbell. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about Power Ranger characters who do not seem article worthy:

Kimberly Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jason Lee Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I worked the article about Trini actress Thuy Trang up to GA status, and during my work there I can tell you that I came across a lot of coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources, indicating the fictional character's notability as well as the actress herself. (In fact, I'd made a note that I'd like eventually to work Trini up to GA as well if I can in the future.) I unfortunately didn't save them when I saw them at the time, but if you take a look at the section Thuy Trang#Power Rangers you will get an idea of some of what's available. In addition to her role as one of the inaugural Power Rangers characters, Trini was included in the 2016 film, in which her sexual orientation was changed, which resulted in additional coverage that help establish notability. (Some of this can be found in Thuy Trang#Death but only in passing.) Furthermore, though all three of these character articles can use some work/improvement, they each DO though on non-plot aspects of the characters as they stand now. Articles need improvement, not deletion, and are clearly notable. — Hunter Kahn 16:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The coverage for both this character and Zack Taylor (though not relevant to this AfD) seemed fairly sparse when I was looking into them for potential AfDs. They're certainly mentioned in relation to the criticism over racism on the show, but nothing much is really said about the characters themselves. It's mostly just passing mentions in relation to the show at large. The character stereotypes for Yellow, Pink, Black, and Blue aren't really individually discussed enough that it's worth bothering with articles at this time. That discussion is better left to either an article on the early development of Power Rangers or just the main article. TTN (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the reception section to the show's page or such. I am not seeing anything that would allow to expand this beyond a one-liner and so of analysis, and merit keeping this, but ping me if better sources are presented. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's worth noting the Thuy Trang#Power Rangers section already has multiple non-plot paragraphs about the character, including the audition, filming, the character's personality traits, injuries sustained during shooting, allegations of racism in the yellow color, stunts, and the actor's less-than-amicable departure from the show. These kind of aspects are often included in a fictional character's page as well as that of the actor. And these only include aspects of the character that directly relate to the actress herself; other sources would expand upon other aspects of the character, like critical reception and character development. So I think to say this character could only be expanded to a line or two is incorrect. — Hunter Kahn 14:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The character is one of the original Power Rangers. I'd say that makes her notable enough to keep. Of course, I do agree that the article could use loads of improvement, but I don't think the fact that the page currently being in the state that it is warrants its deletion. Furthermore, as Hunter said above, many sources from Thuy Trang's page can be used to improve the character's development section. Additionally, Trini received further coverage for the reboot movie, especially in regards to her sexual orientation, which can be used for the "Reception" section. The only issue would be finding additional sources outside of Trang's article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Square (property developer)[edit]

London Square (property developer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both the sources are obvious press releases. I'm not seeing any substantive independently written content about this rather minor company. Guy (help!) 14:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Canadian Tire. Clear consensus not to keep. Less agreement on the redirect-merge-delete spectrum. Redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground, and keeps the history around if somebody wants to mine it for material to merge. There were two different possible redirect targets mentioned; changing the redirect can certainly be worked out via normal editorial discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle Rewards[edit]

Triangle Rewards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam article failing WP:BRANCH BonkHindrance (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • either delete or merge to the article on the company., , altho I'm not really sure that there is anything worth including. "loyalty" schemes are ten a penny.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. As implied by TheLongTone, loyalty programs like this come and go, are very common, and are cheap to start up. If it must be kept, I suggest redirecting it to Canadian Tire. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Canadian Tire. There's no real need for a separate standalone article here, when it can be briefly addressed in the store's article — there just isn't enough to say about it as a topic in its own right to make a separate article necessary here. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could have a separate section about it on the Canadian Tire page if the free advertising is really necessary. Dorama285 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I fully understand that even though other similar pages exist, it does not make a similar page notable. Of the five largest customer loyalty programs by retailers in Canada, all of them have articles (Scene, PC Optimum, Air Miles and Aeroplan). Should these programs be merged into their parent company articles? The rationale for the article was that it was the predecessor of Canadian Tire money and that companies beyond Canadian Tire accept the cards. It's harder to explain to non-Canadians, but these programs act more like currencies than loyalty programs. If the discussion result is merge, Canadian Tire Financial Services would likely be the best suited article to house it, as they administer the program. Daylen (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Canadian Tire as there is no need for a seperate article now. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:58, 12 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. Yunshui 雲水 13:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Watts[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Steph Watts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unsourced BLP that came up before in 2011, nothing added to cite sources since Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 2 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. Yunshui 雲水 13:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Canyon Junction, Arizona[edit]

Bear Canyon Junction, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing at this location except an intersection in the woods, and that's what I see on all maps. The only legitimate hits in searching refer to it only as an intersection as well. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unpopulated intersections are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If a road splits in the woods but there's nobody there to see it, is it a populated place? –dlthewave ☎ 19:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subhadram[edit]

Subhadram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced film that has no content and fails to establish notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sources could be found and the article can be improved rather than "unsourced". Please be reminded that "no content" is a personal comment on the film but not the article, which users should refrain to mention in all forms of discussion and instead put the focus on the actual notability and quality of the article. WikiAviator (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:13, 2 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Charm[edit]

Miss Charm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines. The sources in the article are questionable, no signs of significant coverage. Less Unless (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 2 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Charm 2020[edit]

Miss Charm 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails notability criteria. Moreover it was previously deleted for the same reasons, but under a slightly different name. (AfD discussion [[25]] Less Unless (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Human Genome Organisation[edit]

Human Genome Organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Scientific organisation. No assertion of importance (WP:A7), no sources to indicate notability (WP:GNG). A Google Search shows that the organisation is somewhat frequently mentioned in the media, which does suggest a certain prominence (hence no speedy deletion), but I've not found any detailed third-party coverage that would support an article. Strangely, its subcommittee HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee seems to have much better sourcing. Sandstein 10:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe page was viewed over 430 views in the last few month, has existed since 2007, and this page exists in Wikipedia in 20 languages with English being one of those. Their Committee page is in 10 languages as well so these pages and their contents are being well used by people. ₪RicknAsia₪ 12:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is hardly more than a stub, but orgnaisations of this sort are notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes this is a noteable organization in the field and well-known in the field. They have an important annual meeting and publish a journal. --hroest 01:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs a clean up. Also potentially merge HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee into this article? Amkilpatrick (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider merging sub-topics into this one. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these "keep"s do not provide references to reliable sources that cover the organisation in some depth, as required by WP:N. If it is notable, and it may well be, then such sources should exist. Sandstein 16:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an article about them in Genome Medicine which is part of Springer Nature. Here is an article about them announcing their journal, hosted on the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health website. Here is an article in Nature Genetics talking about their direction to "establishing a common language for the human genome", training course, grants, and meetings following the completion of the human genome project. Here is their website as "the resource for approved human gene nomenclature", updated 4 March 2020, stating support from the National Human Genome Research Institute, Wellcome Trust grant, and Transforming Genetic Medicine Initiative. These links were on the first page of Google search results, part of 83k hits that come up when searching for "Human Genome Organisation". Another 2.8k hits are within Google Scholar. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comment with references just above. It is a well known organization. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 5 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. Yunshui 雲水 13:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Chand Yadav[edit]

Keshav Chand Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First of all president of a party's student organization is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. Via google search I have found routine coverage, interviews. These are not enough for passing WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:56, 2 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. Sandstein 12:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Codenotti[edit]

Christian Codenotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:31, 2 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. As has been noted, YouTube followers are no evidence for notability. Sandstein 18:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barış Özcan[edit]

Barış Özcan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a YouTuber, who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a YouTuber with 4 million subscribers who is pretty famous in Turkey. The article itself also cites multiple sources. Personally, I don't understand the reason behind this nomination. Keivan.fTalk 20:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Views, followers, or popularity are linked to notability but do not constitute it without significant coverage. We need an analysis of the Turkish language sources for reliability and not being WP:ROUTINE. buidhe 23:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The9Man | (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: There are a number of reasons an article is nominated. If we compare 4 million subscribers to the number of stars in the galaxy (100 "billion") then 4 million would be insignificant. That might be an apples to oranges comparison. If we compare rankings: Social Blade rank= 7,061st, Subscriber rank = 2,524th, Video views rank= 11,701st (reference on the article), "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site" (policy) and some consider that Wikipedia is not YouTube. The number of editors involved in that essay might be small (16) but it is usually a significantly higher number than a typical AFD is decided by. Other concerns would be that being in a "top [extremely high number]" in the YouTube ranking is encyclopedia insignificant and not passing the threshold required by GNG. 1)- Being one of twelve YouTube "ambassadors for change" might provide more notability but that is barely mentioned, not likely known by the general public, or covered in-depth by sources I have seen, 2)- The subject reportedly has given "600 speeches at various institutions and conferences", as a "professional keynote speaker", apparently as part of his employment. This is not even mentioned in the article. If there is additional significant in-dept coverage on this it seems it would add to notability but I didn't locate reliable sources, 3)- A final serious concern would be the lack of a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view presenting an advertising tone. There were some serious allegations, that the subject even addressed concerning FETO, but any mention of this is missing. If these issues can be resolved I think there would be enough for a stand alone article, otherwise I will have to go with Delete. Otr500 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack the indepth sources that would demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Turkish Wikipedia has an article on him with contributions from multiple editors. Any Turkish language editor can help here to avoid any systematic bias. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:04, 12 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Levin[edit]

Serge Levin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is currently written like a resume and has only one in-line citation. Levin appears to fail WP:NACTOR. His work in The Americans and Stranger Things appears to be minor, as according to each show's IMDb page he only appears in one episode [26] [27]. I do not believe his work in Alterscape or Jack Goes Home qualify him as notable per NACTOR. I could not find any reliable sources about Meridian Orbis Group or Isle Empire Pictures. userdude 05:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Latest Movies and TV Shows With Serge Levin: [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorita111 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: On the basis of WP:SOAPBOX. Sergeslevin's contribs basically confirms that he's editing his own page and it reads like a resume, which is a WP:COI. There's also a random disclaimer at the top of the page that breaks the style guide that needs to be removed. Per WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG, I do not believe that the coverage and credits thus far are notable enough to warrant this subject an article. – BriefEdits (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned by BriefEdits soapbox and GNG Joseywales1961 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and WP:NOTRESUME. His work as both a businessman and an actor are ordinary. The page mentions his work with companies but doesn't say what roles he had (mail room? salesman? telemarketer?). His film roles have included "KGB officer", "Vlad", "lawyer", "Sven", and "Jackson", which makes me think they're all redshirts. This page would require heavy editing - why are there quotes around the names of former employers? what's with all the trivial mentions? why is there a legal disclaimer in the middle of the article about being a crime victim? - to the point of WP:TNT. I also note the sourcing is terrible, all social media. In 2006, this could all be forgiven, but it's 2020, and everybody knows we are a charity, not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hundreds of words that say very little. Not a lot of credible references, either. Dorama285 (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Celadon Group. (non-admin closure) buidhe 03:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yanke Group[edit]

Yanke Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Although a search yields results, these are only trivial mentions. BonkHindrance (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 03:59, 2 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering Pines, Greenlee County, Arizona[edit]

Whispering Pines, Greenlee County, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a ranch, and according to several topo maps, it was at the time the "Blue River Ranch". But for some reasons some Forest Service map said "Whispering Pines", so they copied that onto the topo quads. At any rate it's clearly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 04:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertised in the 1940s as Whispering Pines Ranch, and the 1960s as Whispering Pines Resort, a vacation destination with cabins to hire. Not a populated place.----Pontificalibus 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable here. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 8 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spur Cross, Arizona[edit]

Spur Cross, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another "no there there" place, geolocating to the middle of nowhere. The topo maps show a name (at least recent enough ones do) and a box marked "shelter", and that's it. Searching is made difficult by a "Spur Cross Ranch" state park in another part of the state, but this forest service trail description seems to be in the right part of the state, and it indicates that the site was a homestead; it also mentions a cave which appears to correspond to the "shelter". At any rate it doesn't appear to be a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:18, 2 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse Eternal[edit]

Eclipse Eternal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND, and the sources provided do not prove the article's notability. Source 2 is an interview/advert, and source 3 is passing coverage. Source 1 alone is not enough to establish notability as a review of the band. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the nom, only one of the articles qualifies to establish notability per WP:BAND, which is not enough. Also, I cannot find any other mentions in any of the reliable sources from WP:MUSIC/SOURCES.  Bait30  Talk? 04:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Over the many years of their existence it looks like they only got one reliable album review (already cited in the article), and otherwise they seem to have received very little reliable and significant coverage beyond brief gig announcements. The articles at the "Brave Words" site (also already cited in the article) appear to be self-written attempts at promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Apache–Sitgreaves National Forests. (non-admin closure) buidhe 03:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannagan Meadow, Arizona[edit]

Hannagan Meadow, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The issue for this "unincorporated community" is that it is a historic lodge complex, as the article almost admits. The Hannigan Meadow Lodge was built in 1926, and it and its outbuildings account for every structure on the site except some public restrooms provided by the Forest Service. Possibly the lodge itself is notable enough to merit an article, in which case the solution would be to move the article and strip out all the populated place nonsense, or it might be merged into the article on the surrounding federal lands. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The lodge may be worth a mention at Apache–Sitgreaves National Forests. Reywas92Talk 22:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox, Arizona[edit]

Fox, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another railroad siding, this time just west of Duncan, Arizona. There was some mining across the road, and some railroad-related buildings, but otherwise nothing. Searching is of course largely futile but nothing turned up that I could readily see. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cattle and ore loading, I could find no evidence of habitation.----Pontificalibus 15:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication that it is populated and no evidence that it meets basic threshold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable railroad stop. –dlthewave ☎ 19:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a legally recognized place. Lightburst (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 08:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monster High: Friday Night Frights[edit]

Monster High: Friday Night Frights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Monster High fan here, but unfortunately this special does not meet WP:N. The article is only a long plot summary and a cast list without any citations. I have not found any reliable sourcing to expand it, and any useful text could be carried over to a list. Lagoona Blue (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as there is a lengthy review in this Dutch film magazine here and a review in Common Sense Media here, haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep moving to full keep as an extra reliable sources review has been added to the article from DVD Talk which is used as a critic on Rotten Tomatoes to go with the two reviews mentioned above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:46, 2 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Wani[edit]

Manan Wani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A student turned Militant who was in the news for his death. Kashmir is a warzone and local commanders from both side do not become notable after dying. Fails WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:MILPERSON as local commanders of militant organisations are not notable. Article was previously deleted at Mannan Wani after its author agreed that it was non notable. DBigXrayᗙ 07:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 07:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The previous author might have missed his awards. Should we avoid his awards for the research which was attended by 400 delegations from 20 countries? This article shouldn't be deleted as per WP:NPROF TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
The "best paper award" in a conference is not a notable award to have its own article. If he got major award like the Nishan-e-Pakistan or Bharat Ratna, then we can have an article on him. How does a militant meets WP:NPROF ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. But he was honoured with award before joining the militants. People are honoured with awards for their own work and not for the work done by others. Moreover, he was a militant for the government of India not for notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs)
Let me say this again, this award is not a notable award, he is not a notable soldier, nor is he a notable professor/student etc. that an article can be created on him. If you disagree, you need to show hard evidence.⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:45, 2 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naveed Jatt[edit]

Naveed Jatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Pakistani militant who was in the news for his death. Kashmir is a warzone and leaders/officers from both side do not become notable after dying, so fails WP:SINGLEEVENT. Fails WP:MILPERSON as "senior leader" of militant organisations are not notable. DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 08:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He carried a counterterrorism reward of 20 Lakh (INR-2,200,000) on his head offered by the Government of India. As per WP:MILPERSON and WP:BASIC, Do we still consider it to be deleted? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: TheBirdsShedTears (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
That is ₹20 lakh (US$24,000) and is a common award for the head of militant area commanders (the post), not specially for this person. Please explain how does a militant meets WP:MILPERSON ? I found no criteria that he fits to have an article. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi[edit]

Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable seminary. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:44, 2 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. Yunshui 雲水 08:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaque Ahmed Ansari[edit]

Ishaque Ahmed Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage found, fails WP:NACADEMIC. Störm (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 20:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk? 20:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banking Ombudsman Scheme (New Zealand)[edit]

Banking Ombudsman Scheme (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but it is unclear what would make it notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:42, 2 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. Sandstein 18:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot Manner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Barefoot Manner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unref page on living people with no indication of meeting WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 01:42, 2 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. KaisaL (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kryzpo[edit]

Kryzpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aware I may be missing something in translation, but I could not establish that this company meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The WP:PROD in 2006 was removed but without any evidence of notability being added. Searches find some passing mentions regarding the market ambitions of Grupo Nutresa but nothing to provide verification for the article text or to establish that the product is notable. AllyD (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Dorama285 (talk) 20:35, 9 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MetaQuotes Software[edit]

MetaQuotes Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Russian article was deleted. It does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. This article about the company largely repeats the article about its product MetaTrader 4. An article about software is significant, but a company is not. Khinkali (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --MarioGom (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to MetaTrader 4: The article does little more than describe the history of the company's main product, and available coverage relates more to the product rather than the company. In the absence of WP:NCORP evidence, a redirect seems a reasonable outcome. AllyD (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaveland, Arizona[edit]

Cleaveland, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another "no there there" place name which appears to have come from a forest service map. The only slight hint of it is an irregular, unlabelled polygon which shows up on one topo map edition, but there's just nothing there on the ground, except for a group of tourist cabins a bit to the west under a completely different name. Searching is made a bit difficult by its use as a last name but I get nothing significant which appears to be about the place. Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia as a gazeteer is a good idea, this is not a real populated place, while we lack articles on many such real populated places in Akwa Ibom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a "populated place", according to the US Geological Survey, but they classify it as "a populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name," and there's no information other than bare stats. (Plus, we don't need any more Cle[a]velands.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a notable polygon. –dlthewave ☎ 19:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Vista, Arizona[edit]

Carlton Vista, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is exactly what the name says: a scenic overlook. You can see the pull-off plainly on GMaps, and there's one topo edition which labels it as such (though most don't). Searching pulls up geoclickbait and a couple of passing references which make clear that it's just an overlook. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. @Mangoe: I appreciate your efforts, but it may be more effective to bundle this with similar AfDs. Cheers, BonkHindrance (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People complained when I did, and one such group nom ended in no consensus as a result. Unfortunately, it appears that each of these has to be considered and checked separately. Mangoe (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not every named place is notable, you need inhabitants at a minimum or reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a populated place, clearly just an overlook per nom. –dlthewave ☎ 19:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Launch[edit]

Brighton Launch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pomotional article with no sources that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fails on so many counts, most notably (no pun) that of notability. And I have a hunch RS citations may be hard to come by. As a very short stub, it also has no context and no content, and while those could be worked on, I don't quite see the point as it stands. Happy to be proven wrong, if someone can help me understand what makes this organisation noteworthy. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I PRODed the page as unsourced and no claim of notability. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The author has been blocked after repeatedly removing the AfD notice. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have !voted to merge as this article appears to be about a program at Brighton School in Toronto, but on the DAB page for Brighton School there's only a redlink for Brighton School (Ontario, Canada). I did find one independent, reliable secondary source (A lesson in skills for life) and one comparison site that may or may not rely upon data entered by someone at the school (Our Kids - Brighton Launch). Even so, not enough for notability. The article is currently poorly written and without any refs, so there is no use even in userfying or draftifying what's there, in my opinion. By process of elimination, the only option left is to delete. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No signs of notability. Dorama285 (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete can we just snow delete this nonsense already? Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody else. No signs of notability. – Frood (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Vista, Arizona[edit]

Blue Vista, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one seems to be just a mapping mistake of some sort. It shows up as a name on every topo map, right at a sharp curve in the road, but there is just nothing there, and from the topography it doesn't seem possible that there ever was. The searching issues in this case are a real estate management company and the famous "Blue Vista Scenic Overlook" which is quite a ways south and a bit west; the latter shows up in every travel guide about Arizona. Other than that, I get nothing but the usual clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is much closer to Blue, Arizona than it is to Blue Vista Overlook so may be unrelated to the latter. Either way there's no evidence it was a populated place as claimed in the article.----Pontificalibus 07:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out & Loud PIQFF[edit]

Out & Loud PIQFF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This minor event fails WP:GNG and WP:DEPTH. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 01:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello; I only noticed now that this has been proposed for deletion as per PROD I did have same thoughts about not having too many sources but felt that it had enough to qualify. It might have more but I decided to keep those which were most significant. Besides, it seems relevant to the LGBTQ community in India. I was in fact surprised to see the proposed deletion after it was reviewed by @DragonflySixtyseven:. Nonetheless, let's see what others feel about it. IamKhandelwal (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this explanation here, and leave me out of this. Thank you. DS (talk) 19:20, 2 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. No consensus on using a redirect due to some valid concerns, but the consensus to remove the article is clear. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eöl[edit]

Eöl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no significant secondary coverage of Eöl at a level that justifies having an article on this fictional character John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:52, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_March_2&oldid=945241881"