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 06:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

James Fayiah Nagbe

James Fayiah Nagbe (  | 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 WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ ( talk) 20:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ ( talk) 20:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ ( talk) 20:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ ( talk) 20:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ ( talk) 20:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree per nomination, Govvy ( talk) 10:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• DELETE per nom. Mightytotems ( talk) 21:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable footballer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Shadow Closer here I like to intern my skill of interpreting consensus and here I interpret it as delete, I leave it to admins for action xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Overseas Indian Cultural Congress

Overseas Indian Cultural Congress (  | 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:NORG and WP:GNG. Hemant Dabral ^Talk 15:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 27. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:ORGCRIT. I performed a [ Google News Search] and could find nothing more than passing mentions. -- BonkHindrance ( talk) 16:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete The article did not pass our notability criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 04:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Organisation in existence for 30+ years, mostly active in the Gulf; multiple sources across multiple years. Easily passes ORG. AfD is not cleanup. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}

-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Per references and reasoning found by Goldsztajn. The article was poorly sourced but I note the WP:BEFORE did not evidence efforts to consider alternatives to AfD first such as notability tagging and possible merges (Djm-leighpark). Djm-mobile ( talk) 23:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Leaning towards keep based on the findings by Goldsztajn. KartikeyaS ( talk) 17:15, 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. No consensus, after relist no new comment (non-admin closure) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Innovo Management

Innovo Management (  | 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 written as per WP:PROMO. The introduction of the article itself states that it is a promotion company. Abishe ( talk) 03:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 03:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 03:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Abishe ( talk) 03:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage that goes beyond press releases and their rewrites. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Significant coverage in regional and national industry-related press. - UFO Music

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 Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Demon (Dungeons & Dragons)

Demon (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fancruft minutia that fails WP:GNG with the vast majority of sources being WP:PRIMARY save for a one sentence reception section based on a passing mention. Wikia/FANDOM material that is unencyclopedic. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 17:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The article is comprised entirely of game information, mostly in-universe, and the only non-game book source currently being used actually has very little coverage of demons, in-specific. It does talk at length about the religious backlash that occurred over D&D's use of fiendish elements, and I do think that is a topic that should be covered at Wikipedia. But, it already is at Dungeons & Dragons#Controversy and notoriety, Dungeons & Dragons controversies, Devil (Dungeons & Dragons), and Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons). And we really don't need that many articles to cover the same notable topic. The actual in-universe game information in this article really should not be retained, and the information on the religious controversies that came about due to the use of demons should be covered entirely at Dungeons & Dragons controversies. I could definitely get behind using this as a Redirect to that article, but there is really no non-gamebook information here to merge. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons) and redirect. At the very least, this article can provide the sources absent from the "Demons" section of that target article. Daranios ( talk) 19:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge, per Daranios. = paul2520 ( talk) 21:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons) per the above. BD2412 T 03:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge to Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons) per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 04:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Fiend (DnD), not that I expect that one to last much longer neither. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Henry Hewes (politician)

Henry Hewes (politician) (  | 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 perennial candidate is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sourcing mentions him occasionally, but not in any significant way. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, I think he passes WP:GNG. While a lot of the references are just run of the mill coverage Minor candidates receive in every presidential election, he seems notable for his 1989 Mayoral run, and there is also the 2005 New York Times article. That makes two articles where he is the primary subject, and the articles on the Mayoral debates in both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times seem to give him substantial enough coverage to count towards a GNG pass. Also, given how long ago this was, I suspect there is probably some offline coverage out there. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 01:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Devonian Wombat. Given that subject's Wikipedia entry has 14 references, seven of which consist of The New York Times articles, including one devoted entirely to him, his longtime presence on the political scene and extensive publicity should certainly indicate sufficient notability for the retention of his Wikipedia article. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect and merge what is relevant to 1989 New York City mayoral election. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - while his runs were hopeless, because the RTL party is so small, he did survive the Liberal party's demise. There is clearly WP:SIGCOV. Bearian ( talk) 00:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This article will most likely survive this nomination, at which point it will need to be moved to another descriptor. The subject is not a politician, nor has he ever been, since he has never held political office. A better description would be "perennial candidate." -- Kbabej ( talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Per Devonian Wombat. Analog Horror, ( Speak) 21:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to United Airlines. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

United p.s.

United p.s. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Most of the info of the article is restated elsewhere. The main united article already has a section on this, and the planes that have this service are listed in the fleet article. I propose getting rid of this article, and adding some history (although trimmed) to the main article CZ3699 ( talk) 16:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CZ3699 ( talk) 16:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

• Redirect to United Airlines; then selective merge as appropriate per nom. Night fury 11:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Aleksandër Vezuli

Aleksandër Vezuli (  | 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 was created by the subject and largely edited only by the subject. Given how poorly written and sourced it is, it's hard to tell whether Vezuli is sufficiently notable. Those problems are compounded by the fact that it is a foreign subject and the sources are more likely to be Albanian if one searches for them. I am therefore nominating it to allow the community to decide. Bbb23 ( talk) 16:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. The text, moreover, reeks of promotion, which never helps. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:GNG. The WP:COI and WP:SELFPROMOTION problems are also a factor. None of the compositions listed have an article. MarnetteD| Talk 18:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Well, he certainly exists as AllMusic attests, and there's even a local interest story on him and a piece on Howard Garrett that mentions Vezuli in passing, but no WP:SIGCOV. WP:OWN, WP:COI and other issues aside, the subject doesn't meet any notability criteria yet: WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER, etc. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:27, 13 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

William Sweet (American football)

William Sweet (American football) (  | 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 WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Unable to find significant coverage that isn't transactional. Eagles  24/7  (C) 15:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 15:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 15:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Subject does not pass either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH and my searches do not turn up the sort of significant coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• delete college football offensive linemen rarely generate enough press to pass WP:GNG. I see no reason for an exception here. -- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 01:39, 15 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 keep. Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NonsensicalSystem ^(err0r?) _(.log) 09:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Channasandra railway station

Channasandra railway station (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NGEO or WP:GNG. Does not demostrate notability. NonsensicalSystem ^(err0r?) _(.log) 14:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NonsensicalSystem ^(err0r?) _(.log) 14:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. We keep articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Necrothesp: Oh. That's probably why I keep seeing them without sources. How do I close these (TW did this for me). NonsensicalSystem ^(err0r?) _(.log) 14:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ NonsensicalSystem: - install Wikipedia:XFDcloser, refresh, then click close and in the pop-up box choose keep, tick speedy and write "nomination withdrawn" in additional rationale. -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 07:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep.I have provided reference to a newspaper in relation to the station. Also, legally, Ramamurthy Nagar is a place in Bengaluru. Please do clarify my doubt in simple terms upon why the article has been selected for deletion. Thank you.-- Tangirala1234 ( talk) 19:45, 13 March 2020 (ITC)
• Keep Sourced railway station is a keep. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 01:59, 14 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Veniamin Kostitsin

Veniamin Kostitsin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Kostitsin Stats)

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

I tried to search proper references on both Russian, German and English and didn't find any reliable sources. He is failing both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Borgia Venedict ( talk) 13:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Borgia Venedict ( talk) 13:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists deletion discussions. Borgia Venedict ( talk) 13:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 14:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 14:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment also, this is an autobiography. User:Detarusa uploaded the image as author/own work, as well as created the article. -- Theredproject ( talk) 15:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete a search found no WP:RS coverage at all. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Could not find anything that substantiates notability by way of verifiable significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails GNG & NARTIST. Netherzone ( talk) 20:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hawkeye characters. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Crossfire (comics)

Crossfire (comics) (  | 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 this fictional character passes NFICTION/GNG. Pure WP:PLOT+list of appearances in media. A merge has been proposed (but sadly unfinished, with no rationale, just template) to List of Hawkeye characters but all content here but one sentence was referenced to PRIMARY sources, and that list does not have space for this WP:FANCRUFT, so merging virtually anything there would look rather weird. Since a redirect has been challenged, here we go. Delete, keep, merge, redirect...? My recommendation is for REDIRECT given WP:SOFTDELETE/PRESERVE/CHEAP. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Due to him being the closest thing to Hawkeye’s worst enemy / archenemy. I am in favor of Keep for now. I am in process of moving but I found one source that put him in the number one spot. This by no means doesn’t mean that it’s the only source. Just that I am too busy to find others for now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you, but a single paragraph in a list is not very helpful. Yes, we can add a "reception" section he has been listed on a list, but you know that such lists on the Internet are dime a dozen, and in the past inclusion even in several of such lists, with no other reception, has not been sufficient to prevent articles from being merged or deleted. Through I am find with adding this list as a ref to his entry in the List of H... characters. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Stop being preachy to the choir. I am well aware of how it works. I said I am busy with moving. Therefore that’s the only source FOR NOW. Or maybe never because I am tired of the sources not being good enough. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 11:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge to List of Hawkeye characters per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 15:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect. Listicle factories do not belong in articles, so there are currently no valid sources to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 23:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Hawkeye characters, the article is sourced entirely to primary sources, with one exception that is not a reliable source anyway. As a result, it fails GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Kingdom of the Slavs

Kingdom of the Slavs (  | 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:N samrolken ( talk) 12:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Samrolken, why do you say that this "Fails WP:N"? There's a substantial body of coverage about the book, its influence, and its importance. A brief Google search, for example, returns these among others: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 02:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

"The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book" Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#cite_note-subject-1 While this book is mentioned and referred to a number of times, I don’t think the book itself has been the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources for it to be possible to make a good encyclopedia article about it. samrolken ( talk) 15:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

A very quick web search reveals a fair number of titles dedicated to the topic, including the following::

• Husić, S. (2001). Territorial organisation of the narrative in" Il Regno de gli Slavi". In "Kraljevstvo Slavena" Mavra Orbinija.(Re) produkcijski okviri i recepcijski horizonti u četiristoljetnom trajanju.
• Šanjek, Franjo (2001). Mavro Orbini: Uz 400. obljetnicu djela 'Il Regno de gli Slavi' // Hrvatska revija, I
• Adinolfi, R. (2015). "Царството на славяните" от Мавро Орбини, руският превод на Сава Владиславич и изследванията по въпроса. Проглас, 24(2), 309-320.

– Uanfala (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:NEXIST. As Usernameunique says, it's easy to find high-quality sources writing about Orbini and Kingdom of the Slavs. For example:
  • " Indetermi-Nation: Narrative identity and symbolic politics in early modern Illyrism" by Zrinka Blažević, in Whose Love of Which Country?: Composite States, National Histories and Patriotic Discourses in Early Modern East Central Europe], Koninklijke Brill (2010)
  • Croatia: A Nation Formed in War by Marcus Tanner, Yale University Press (1997)
  • Entangled Histories Of The Balkans - Volume One ed. by Roumen Dontchev Daskalov and Tchavdar Marinov, Koninklijke Brill (2013)
  • When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods by Larry Wolff, Stanford University Press (2002)
  • Our Kingdom Come: The Counter-Reformation, the Republic of Dubrovnik, and the Liberation of the Balkan Slavs by Zdenko Zlatar, East European Monographs (1992)

These clearly demonstrate notability. I've added these sources to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as resources. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 02:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: historically notable work, with a lot of sources out there about it. – Uanfala (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep possibly as Kingdom of the Slavs (book). It sounds as if it was a significant work historically. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There may be a better title, but this definitely meets WP:N. Srnec ( talk) 02:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

John W. Childs

John W. Childs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO/GNG (also some WP:BLP issues). Coverage is in passing, nothing in-depth, I am not seeing a single article about him. He is often mentioned as a major donor, but coverage in such cases ranges from one sentences to a generic paragraph bio-blurb likely submitted by his staff. There is some recent coverage about a solicitation charge, but it raises BLP issues, plus WP:ONEEVENT. No valid redirect/merge target, as merge to J.W. Childs Associates, the only plausibly relevant article, would be strange (we don't usually add biographies of personel to articles about organization). He seems to keep a relatively low media profile... At best, per WP:PRESERVE, a WP:REDIRECT (they are WP:CHEAP) could be made from his bio to the article of J.W. Childs Associates. Unless we can save this article by finding evidence of in-depth, independent, reliable coverage, which I failed, but I am happy to let others show me what I missed? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 12:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge with J.W. Childs Associates, another WP:POINTy AfD after a shot down PROD. The Banner  talk 18:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nicknamed the "Republican ATM", the subject appears in several articles and listicles, despite being notoriously "media-shy": (1) (2) (3). A nice article on his conservation work through the Wild Salmon Center exists here: (4). While the more recent coverage is about WP:ONEEVENT, it is substantial and in-depth, and provides a ton of further detail on the man's life, e.g. USA Today, Boston Globe, CNBC. I respect the BLP concern, but I think the entry can remain balanced. Given the above references, GNG is satisfied, and the subject appears notable beyond the recent charges in Florida.   Pegnawl ( talk) 18:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep by available sources and WP:NEXIST. Yikes, this too was prodded! Please use the tool appropriately. gidonb ( talk) 01:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above sources listed. Meets GNG. Mallardsfan19 ( talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Luma Health

Luma Health (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Advertisement of a company G11, Notability UK-E79 ( talk) 06:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)— UK-E79 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- KartikeyaS ( talk) 09:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 07:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Sources are mainly press releases or unreliable promotional websites where you can get article about your company published. Easily fails WP:ORGCRIT. Aman Kumar Goel^{( Talk)} 08:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The previous Afd has a long discussion particularly on sources. Can you please state which sources you think are press releases and from promotional websites where you can get your article published? KartikeyaS ( talk) 08:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, re "which sources are press releases", MedCity News "San Francisco-based patient communication company Luma Health announced Tuesday", "In the news release announcing the fundraise, the company stated." Pulse 2.0 "Luma Health announced it raised $16 million in Series B equity funding", "Luma Health formalized its partnership with Epic and announced additional EHR integration partnerships." Vator.com "On Tuesday, the company announced that it raised a $16 million Series B round of funding." Essentially those articles are just summaries of their press releases, with interviews from capital investors or the CEO talking about how great the company will be in the future intermingled in. In no way is that neutral or secondary. It's essentially just a ruse to get investors. Btw, according to WP:NCORP partnerships, found raising, and new product announcements are not usable to establish notability. Id say especially funding. As essentially every startup gets funding when it is first starting out. So, there's nothing unique or notable about it. Especially with these kinds of companies. If you get rid of the four or so articles on that and the few others about products or whatever, there isn't really much left to actually establish notability with. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 11:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I get your poing regarding WP:NCORP but do you think a non-notable start-up would get a coverage in the Wall Street Journal [1]? It has been used in several analysis [2] as well. Not all references are press release. KartikeyaS ( talk) 16:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I didn't say all the references where press releases, just a good portion of them. Which still matters. Even if it's technically every source. As far as the Wall Street Journal article, it's still about trivial coverage of venture capitalist founding. Which again, is trivial and not usable to establish notable. The source doesn't matter, because notability isn't inherited. Although I can't directly speak to the other source since I don't have access to it, going by the summary it seems like trivial coverage also. Since it's not specific to the company and more about "patent software" in general. Even if it is in-depth though, it's still based an analyzes of future projections of "patent software in 2020." Which doesn't meet notability either IMO. As its about notability now, not "hey, I think this software will be popular and notable in a year. So lets have an article about it now." Generally, you have to be careful when it comes to things discussing future events. Otherwise, anything could potentially be worthy of an article due to maybe being notable at some point. Anyway, if you get rid of the venture capital stuff and product descriptions from the article your just left with a stub and WP:GNG says "editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Which this article would be. I tend to air more on the side of caution about permanent stubs then others might, especially if the subject also lacks reliable in-depth coverage, but other users are free to take a different slant with it then I do. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 03:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Adamant1 Thank you for the detail clarification and I do agree with the fact that we should not have an article on the basis of having a potential to become notable at future but as per WP:GNG, there is in-depth coverage here.-- KartikeyaS ( talk) 16:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:Advert. Mostly based on press releases or trivial coverage of those press releases. Dorama285 ( talk) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC) reply

We can certainly remove all press releases and Afd is not cleanup. Please, let me know if I'm missing something. KartikeyaS ( talk) 17:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. While I'm a bit suspicious of the nom's sudden interest in deletion, concur with the above !votes - heavily cited to press releases, the rest is WP:ROUTINE coverage. creffett ( talk) 03:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I recommended this for deletion last year which resulted in no consensus. I still do not think it meets WP:NCORP as the references fail WP:ORGCRIT. For instance, the WSJ piece is a general announcement and there is no depth to the piece. So yes, WSJ would talk about a non-notable company if you remember that some companies are notable in the world of venture funding despite not being notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I still believe the WSJ might have something useful. It will be good if any editor who has access to it can help us here. Also, if you check the previous Afd, HighKing pointed out that it passed both GNG and NCORP based on this reseach report. I would like to know your view please on this?-- KartikeyaS ( talk) 17:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete See nothing in this promotional article about a non-notable company. Paid press releases do not meet WP:NCORP. Capankajsmilyo^{( Talk | Infobox assistance)} 05:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Please have a look at the sources I listed here. KartikeyaS ( talk) 17:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• I have blocked the nominator as a Wikibaji sockpuppet. MER-C 11:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep The criteria for establishing notability is for multiple references (i.e. at least two) that can be classified as significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Research reports covering the company have long been establishing as meeting the criteria, therefore if two (or more) research reports are referenced, the topic meets the criteria for establishing notability.
  • Research report by Orbis Research covers Luma in depth
  • Business Insider Intelligence research report also provides enough coverage on Luma

Clearly, this topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. While I agree that most (all?) of the other references are crap and fail the criteria, that only means they cannot be used for the purposes of establishing notability, they may be used to support cited facts. If any of the Delete !voters don't accept the above research reports for the purposes of establishing notability, I would be very interested to hear the reasons. HighKing ⁺⁺ 19:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC) reply

HighKing, I'm unable to afford those reports; they're $3900 and $679. Not sure how much of those is actually about the subject. The summaries say "key players covered in this study" and "companies mentioned in this report". I suppose we could say sources exist, but I don't think they have been used. This AfD is bizarre: I'm baffled by "I still believe the WSJ might have something useful". Hand on a second; that's by the editor who inserted the claim! How are we writing an article based on sources nobody here has access to? Vexations ( talk) 12:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Vexations, the standard required for sources to establish notability is a lot stricter than the standard for using sources to support facts/citations within an article. For example, an interview with the CEO might be used as a source to establish how many employees a company has or where their head office is located, which is perfectly fine, but that same source likely fails the criteria for establishing notability and cannot be counted for that purpose. In relation to analyst reports particularly, they are acceptable as sources that establish notability. By their very nature, they provide descriptions of each company. Even a brief description in an analyst report is usually better than 99% of the descriptions you find in other media (in my opinion). I understand that many of these reports cost $ but that isn't a reason to discount their existence. HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

HighKing, I agree, but now we have the bizarre situation that the subject is notable because reports exist that no one has read, but the article is written from sources that shouldn't have been used in the first place. Common sense, then would be to say, sure, you can write an article, but wait until you can access the good sources. Is there some emergency that requires that we immediately publish an article about this subject despite the lack of access to good sources? Vexations ( talk) 11:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Vexations, yes, it is entirely possible for a notable topic to end up with a terrible article but AfD is not cleanup. You can tag an article for cleanup, etc, but deletion shouldn't be used for these cases. HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

HighKing, well, then, it should be a Keep. I don't like it, but that doesn't matter. The subject is notable because it has been covered in at least two analyst's reports. Vexations ( talk) 16:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Vexations, yes, that's the conclusion I came to also. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Vexations you can at least use a source like WSJ by looking at its title. WP:SOURCEACCESS states Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. KartikeyaS ( talk) 16:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

KartikeyaS343, I may find a source difficult to access, and that does not affect the notability of the subject. However, I would expect that an editor who adds the source has read it in full. That's the basis of my good faith assumption that what a source actually says is summarized correctly by the editor who added it. But if I find out that the editor hasn't read the source, how am I going to know that that editor didn't just make something up? That is now almost certainly the case. Vexations ( talk) 21:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the note and this is why I used it to cite only a single sentence which can be verified by looking at the title of the WSJ post. It would really help if anyone with the access to WSJ can comment here. -- KartikeyaS ( talk) 16:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete purely promotion and there is nothing significant outside routine coverage. Accesscrawl ( talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This article from the MedCity News can be used as a reliable source. Please, check this [3] at WP:RSN. Any native advertising post has "sponsored" or "branded" written somewhere in it. KartikeyaS ( talk) 16:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I have fixed the article and asked at WP:RSN for the remaining 2 unreliable sources [4]. KartikeyaS ( talk) 16:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment Disagree. The RSN commenter is wrong on at least one point. The FCC doesn't regulate websites. I could nitpick his argument for a few other reasons ( native advertising rules are not widely enforced against small-time operations), but will suffice to say they would have to do better than MedCityNews to convince me of notability. Dorama285 ( talk) 15:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment, neither of the two sources are reliable for the reasons I stated in WP:RSN. Mainly, both appear to be personal blogs by people who aren't regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. As they are just random bloggers. The first source seems to be heavily based on a company press release anyway. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 14:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The WSJ article is five paragraphs long, for what it's worth. Users without a subscription aren't missing much. Dorama285 ( talk) 17:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Shadow closer I like to intern my skill of interpreting discussion consensus, and for this discussion I interpret it as delete. And I leave it to the admins for action xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Tumurbaatar Enkhtungalag

Tumurbaatar Enkhtungalag (  | 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 actress is only known for one event. Fails WP:NACTOR. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 10:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA ^talk 10:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete: As per the nomination. It doesn't look like WP:GNG is made out, either. Dflaw4 ( talk) 11:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. See WP:TOOSOON. Her only significant role so far is a minor role is a major movie. With time she might well merit an article, but now is not that time. Right now her only claim to fame is being a Mongolian actress that was chosen for a Hollywood movie. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Vijay Kumar Thallam

Vijay Kumar Thallam (  | 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 in-depth coverage about subject. The only good source I could found is this. Rest are just name drops, interviews or about Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF). To clarify ZBNF is an initiative of state government, not this person but this article is trying to portray the reverse.

Looking at contribs of creator of article it looks like undisclosed paid editing. ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 10:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:30, 13 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Jan Welch

Jan Welch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Absolutely non-notable. Nothing of any significance found in searches. Article appears promotional and includes edits by the subject themselves. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for promotionalism. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No sourced notability, and nothing in reliable sources to indicate such. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom - this is not LinkedIn. He has contributed to numerous non-notable magazines but that does not help to meet GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

*Delete Resume with no sources Alpateya ( talk) 18:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Alpateya is a blocked sock. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Raise the Roof (card game)

Raise the Roof (card game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor game that seems to fail WP:GNG. Next to no coverage outside a few mentions in passing on the web. BGG entry shows no awards or such. No reliable reviews have been found in BEFORE. It exists, but that is hardly enough to get an article in an encyclopedia, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Can't find any significant sources to pass WP:GNG. Found a handful of passing mentions in books. I assume if significant sources existed, most would be hard to find now because the game came out in the early 80s, so most sources would have to be print.

In case anyone is interested, here are all passing mentions of the game's name I could find (some I can only see snippets of, but they don't look substantial): The Year You Were Born: 1984, Companies and Their Brands, Historic Preservation, Area Business Databank - Whisperjanes ( talk) 23:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nomination. TH1980 ( talk) 00:48, 15 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) CZ3699 ( talk) 02:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Maine School Administrative District 3

Maine School Administrative District 3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Stub article with one source that hasn’t been edited in years CZ3699 ( talk) 01:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CZ3699 ( talk) 01:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine School Administrative District 11, similar, ongoing. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep school district articles are usually kept and being a stub and not edited much are not valid reasons for delrtion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Atlantic306. Coverage (at least mentions) of elementary, middle schools of district should be added. School district articles are useful for helping fight proliferation of separate articles. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep according to current Wiki standards. There is no need for the article to experience expansion or frequent edits for maintaining importance. Capitals00 ( talk) 03:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) CZ3699 ( talk) 02:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Maine School Administrative District 11

Maine School Administrative District 11 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Stub article with only a few sentences and once source - the district website CZ3699 ( talk) 01:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CZ3699 ( talk) 01:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• • Keep per User:Atlantic306's comment in similar ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine School Administrative District 3. Deletion nomination does not speak to wp:BEFORE or fact that topic may be clearly notable despite Wikipedia article's state. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Coverage (at least mentions) of elementary, middle schools of district should be added. School district articles are useful for helping fight proliferation of separate articles. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as school district articles are usually kept as they usually have coverage but also serve a purpose of listing schools that do not qualify for a separate article, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - US school district articles are inherently notable. A school district has fixed boundaries and can levy taxes. That means they meet WP:GEOLAND. John from Idegon ( talk) 18:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep according to current Wiki standards. There is no need for the article to experience expansion or frequent edits for maintaining importance. Capitals00 ( talk) 03:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Seeing how this will most likely go as keep, should we simply just add the schools to this article? CZ3699 ( talk) 15:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That, CZ3699 is somewhat off topic here. You are allowed to edit (but not blank) articles under discussion here. Best practice would go to the article and apply WP:BRD. John from Idegon ( talk) 17:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Probably should that on the talk page, my bad. CZ3699 ( talk) 22:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Halfling. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons)

Halfling (Dungeons & Dragons) (  | 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 article that fails WP:GNG. Even the notability of halfling is a bit shaky, but this article lacks notability in secondary sources and is sourced to WP:PRIMARY ones. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 01:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Obvious merge to Halfling, which is itself a stub, and would benefit greatly from the expansion, and from any other mergers/expansion that can be found. Sources that are primary to the specific concept of a D&D halfling are secondary as to the general pop culture concept of a halfling, which has no "in universe" connotation. BD2412 T 01:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Selective merge to Halfling. The topic of halflings as a whole is probably notable to some extent, and the D&D halflings would be part of that subject. However, the amount of detail in the entire article would be WP:UNDUE. A trimmed version should be merged, though. Hog Farm ( talk) 02:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Halfling - I initially was going to suggest a selective merge, per Hog Farm, as I felt that the existence of the D&D Halflings and the legal issues regarding how they came about their names was worth a mention there. But, I see that it already is, and as there is nothing else in the article except for primary-sourced game info, I don't really see much else that would really need to be merged. At the very least, this is an unnecessary WP:SPLIT, I would say. A Redirect would leave its history intact, in the case that others felt that there was other information worth merging. Rorshacma ( talk) 13:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge to Halfling per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ ( talk) 14:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge per BD2412 and BOZ and redirect. Secondary sources here are mostly but not completely present in the target article as it is now, primary sources here should be used to flesh the D&D-related info out to at least the level of those present for other fiction versions. Daranios ( talk) 18:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:NEXIST. As one of the original races in the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons, the halfling has been discussed in non-fiction academic work on role-playing games.
  • The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games by Michael J. Tresca, McFarland & Co (2010)
  • Of Dice and Men: The Story of Dungeons & Dragons and The People Who Play It by David W. Ewalt, Scribner (2014)
  • Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy: Raiding the Temple of Wisdom, Open Court (2012)
  • The Encyclopedia of Fantasy by John Clute & John Grant, St. Martins Press (1999)
  • Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games by Lawrence Schick, Prometheus (1991)
  • " Racial Determinism and the Interlocking Economics of Power and Violence in Dungeons & Dragons" by Ilan Mitchell-Smith in Opting Culture: Culture and Power in Sociology and Cultural Studies, Lexington Books (2009)

The amount of coverage in each source varies, but I think collectively they demonstrate notability. I'll put these sources on the article page in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the page can use them as resources. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 01:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• That Encyclopedia of Fantasy book, as far as I can tell, does not even talk about D&D halflings. Clicking on your link, every actual discussion of the term halfling is only in regards to other uses of the term outside of D&D, such as a half-elf or a half-selkie. In fact, that actual entry for the term "Halfling" in the book does not even mention the D&D version. The closest it actually even comes is listing the name of the D&D novel The Halfling's Gem' in a list of R.A. Salvatore's books. Additionally, that last source you provided appears to mention Halflings in exactly one sentence, where they are not even the primary subject of the sentence. Searching for sources is certainly helpful, but it would be even more helpful if you took the extra time to actually review your proposed sources before flooding the AFD with a number of them that are not actually helpful to the subject matter at all.

Likewise, posting links to Amazon sales pages aren't particularly useful in helping others find information if you aren't going to actually tell us what the coverage in those books is, and I am not sure if it is appropriate to add those links to the Amazon sales pages to the actual article. Rorshacma ( talk) 05:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to halfing (a rather sorry article anyway). I am not seeing any in-depth discussion of halfings in DnD, just mentions in passing in the wider, bigger context of halfing concept discourse. Sources listed by Toughpigs, those that I can access, don't seem to discuss DnD aspect beyond plot. Concept of halfing may be notable, concept of halfings in DnD is WP:FANCRUFT. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Dungeons and Dragons media has served as a baseline for a lot of fantasy media since its inception. Nominating all of these D&D pages seems like a scorched earth policy to me. If the article doesn't meet some sort of requirement, I believe it can always be improved as opposed to outright deletion. Waxworker ( talk) 09:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Merge can be discussed outside of AfD. Nominator is a blocked sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 06:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Sixth Cambridge Survey of Radio Sources

Sixth Cambridge Survey of Radio Sources (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

All sources primary, not really any secondary sources found. (The primary sources seem to be dead links, also.) The article is also in very bad shape... King of Scorpions 23:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. King of Scorpions 23:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep as a clearly important survey of radio sources. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies here. See also WP:BEFORE. Could probably be merged into a general Cambridge Survey of Radio Sources, to regroup 1−10C together, however. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep No secondary sources? Try this one. I've added this and others to the article, too. That said, I do wonder whether a merge might be possible into a single article, rather than randomly deleting one of a series of ten pages that a now blocked sock-puppet happened to have stumbled across. But I'd recommend leaving that to more expert editors. Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Michal Vostrez

Michal Vostrez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Despite the rather long filmography, I can't find any reliable sources about the subject. From looking through the linked Czech Wikipedia article, of the films in the filmography with actual articles, few mention Vostrez and I didn't see any that mentioned him to a significant degree. The actual sources did not come anywhere near GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete the article lacks even one reliable source. Wikipedia should not be an IMDb mirror. IMDb is not reliable and should not be used as a source for articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:06, 13 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. While the voting is split, I am weighting Atlantic306's assertion of a pass at WP:NMUSIC criterion 4, supported by a reliable source, more heavily. I will make some effort to trim any promotional or subjective content from the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Seelyhoo

Seelyhoo (  | 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 through substantial secondary sources. I can find two reviews on blogs but I’m not sure these are enough to indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I found one non-blog source, from The Herald [5]. Probably still not enough for notability, though. YorkshireLad ( talk) 09:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, mostly non-RS to be found. Caro7200 ( talk) 12:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as the reliable Glasgow Herald source shows that they had a major tour of Germany as well as appearing in Japan which is a claim to pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 4 (only one criteria needed). They have a small bio at AllMusic, will search for more sources later, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Extra sources here, and here imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - thanks to the sources found by Atlantic306 above, though the article needs to be cleaned up with some attempted promotional statements removed. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Mr. USA

Mr. USA (  | 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 notable wrestler, fails WP:GNG. Only worked on a regional level. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 00:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 02:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 03:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable wrestler. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Foxnpichu ( talk) 17:37, 14 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.