Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

▼ Candidates for speedy deletion

► Kanishk Gupta (KG)

User:3SixtyConsult/sandbox/3SixtyConsult

2020 coronavirus pandemic in the province of Alberta

Akiko Ichikawa (disambiguation)

Draft:Aquatorium (alkaline hydrolosis)

Categories: Recipients of the Presidential Unit Citation (United States)

Draft:Choline

Draft:Cordelia Abidaoud

Draft:Dan Murphy (musician)

Draft:Davis Dizzy Martial

Ded Buddy

Draft:DED, LLC

Dhaka South City Corporation Election

Draft:Donald Sylvester

Draft:DR K S R Krishnaprasad

Draft:DR.JANAKI AYATHAN

Draft:Draft mediasignx1

Draft:The ym

Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital (GYNMCH)

Draft:GrandNode

Draft:India Praja Bandhu Party

Template:Infobox AAAID

Draft:ISSA – The Worldwide Cleaning Industry Associatio

Draft:Janine Tregelles

User:Joe mama64/sandbox

Draft:Jonathon Grasse

Juula, Tartu County

Kaiavere, Tartu County

Kim Harrie Abel

Wikipedia:KimAbel

Kirill Kondratyev (disambiguation)

Koogi, Tartu County

Linear least squares (disambiguation)

List of hillforts (disambiguation)

List of R&B musicians (disambiguation)

Draft:List of UK Prime Ministers by experience

Lithe (disambiguation)

Lophorina (disambiguation)

Lorenzato (disambiguation)

Mapmygenome

User:Montengro252/sandbox

Draft:Most kaapra place in the world

MSI Cjay

User:Musicbwoy PD/sandbox

Draft:Ngoni Safaris Uganda

Pallars (disambiguation)

Parked (disambiguation)

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/April 2020

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Archive

Wikipedia:Picture of the day/March 2020

Template:POTD/2020-03-28

Template:POTD/2020-04-19

Draft:Prince Bonney

Prohor Pčinjski (disambiguation)

Prorogation (disambiguation)

Quacky

Raagi

Draft:Rachel Singh

Draft:Rae Dylan

Ram Jhula (disambiguation)

Draft:Rawal Rath

Draft:Ririn Dwi Ariyanti

River running (disambiguation)

Draft:Rizwan Sajan

Sandaya

Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/April 19

Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/March 28

Draft:Skills on Biz

Draft:Soulstice (Singer)

Draft:Sukhjinder Sharma

Tarrasque (disambiguation)

Teboho Mokoena (footballer, born 1997)

Talk:Thaler

Draft:Tree Stain

Draft:Vinod Illampally

Template:Why are you running?!

Draft:Widline Jean Jules

Draft:Wowville

User:Yasir72.multan/POTD album

Draft:YEW! Your Environment's Wax

User:Zzyzx11/POTD en

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 March	19 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Noor Muhammad[edit]

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

No coverage on his death. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Asad Naqvi[edit]

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

Poor index, fails WP:NPROF. He now works at Goldman Sachs. Störm (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Chaudry Mohammad Aslam[edit]

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

An unsourced article, no coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Arif Zaman[edit]

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

Low index, fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Farzana Aslam[edit]

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

h-index of 1, fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Stade Léon Mahé[edit]

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

Four small "stadiums" (actually, three small football pitches and one local sports centre) with capacity from 150 to 500 people. Basically, the kind of pitch nearly every village in the world has for one or more sports, be it soccer, cricket, baseball, ... This nom does explicitly not include the Stade John Girardin, which, small as it is, is the "national" stadium for Saint-Pierre et Miquelon.

Also included in this nomination are:

. Fram (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

2019-20 Chesterfield F.C. season[edit]

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

Prod removed, Article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Nelson A. Asamoah[edit]

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

Thus article on a non notable actor was PRODed but the PROD was removed, so bringing here for a consensus view. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

TWH Bus & Coach[edit]

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

Unremarkable closed ROTM company with history to suit. Sources all are from local media/blog sites so can't really be verified. Nightfury 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Kristen Idrettskontakt[edit]

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

Tagged for three years I can find no independent sources, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Per Nom, GNG, and PSTS. Analog Horror, (Speak) 14:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Spanish flu cases[edit]

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

This article is a mess. It simultaneously is unjustifiably large and ludicrously small. The present list of deaths includes many people for whom we have no evidence they actually belong. The list itself is way under sourced. Assertions about death should be directly sourced here. Some of them are sourced on the individual bio pages, some are baldly asserted there, and a few I have removed were not even asserted at all on the respective bio pages. On the other hand the list of survivors is ludicrously short. If this disease infected 27% of the living people of the time, the list of those affected should be much, much longer. Why is it not? Probably because getting influenza, even when it is a very bad strain is not actually defining to those who survive. On the other hand estimates of the number who died from Spanish influenza range from 17 million to 100 million. The sourcing on individual causes of death is not there, and with lots of people who are borderline notable, like one time players in the 1904 olympics and one game cricket players, the study of primary sources to determine death and publication of that in secondary sources is not happening. Even if we limited this to death, it is not clear that even at the time it was always known if Spanish influenza was causing deaths. So I do not think we have any justification for creating this list, we do not have good enough sourcing to do so, and it is not defining enough to justify. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

’’’delete’’’. For the same reasons as my list of coronavirus 2p19/20 article delete vote. Utterly stupid article. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Meh I just move large blocks of people with disease X from main articles to subarticles. People love writing these people with disease X articles. We maybe need guidelines around them more than just deleting one of thousands of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep It's too large.... It's too small... Nom makes no sense and as no valid reason has been presented for deletion (or at least not one that makes sense) it must be kept. That's not even counting the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in the nom - I fail to see what the 1904 Olympics or cricket players have anything to do with this. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert's comments about it being both "unjustifiably large and ludicrously small" make perfect sense to me. It is 'too large' because it contains individuals that shouldn't be on it, and it is 'too small' because it stands no chance whatsoever of ever including all those who should be on it, if 'death by Spanish influenza' (or just catching it) is a valid reason in the first place to compile a list of 'notables' from among the 25% of the world population that caught it, and the 17 to 100 million who died of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment To add to what Johnpacklambert says above, as I noted elsewhere [1] one of my concerns regarding this list is that it includes individuals as Spanish flu fatalities where the relevant Wikipedia biography merely had a (sourced or unsourced) statement that they died 'during' the epidemic (see e.g. Rose Cleveland). No doubt some died as a result of it, but it is pure WP:OR to assume so. And there is currently no realistic mechanism to prevent this sort of WP:OR once again rendering the list entirely useless as a source of useful information, even if it is cleaned up now. Bad data (or data which cannot be relied on not to be bad) is often worse than no data at all. While this list obviously doesn't have the WP:BLP concerns that some other 'disease' lists do, it still concerns me that it has been presented in this manner. In my opinion nothing less than a complete and careful review of all existing entries, a strict requirement for proper direct sourcing, and some means to ensure that new entries to the list are properly monitored would rectify the situation. And even if the list consists only of individuals that can be reliably sourced, it is going to be of little merit, given the almost random way that individuals arrive on it. Even ignoring the clearly-inconsistent way that Wikipedia 'notability' is applied the list can only ever contain 'notable' individuals for whom a biography has been written (an immediate source of unintentional) bias), where a source for death by (or survival of) Spanish flu can be cited, and where someone adds the individual to the list (I am quite sure there must be biographies on Wikipedia that have properly-sourced deaths due to the epidemic in them that aren't on the list, since the person writing the biography may be entirely unaware of its existence). I am not going to !vote delete here, since my opinion on Wikipedia's attitudes toward biographical lists (and categories) is clearly at odds with the way many (most?) others think, but I would suggest that it might serve the interests of readers better if there were less proliferation of unreliable, inconsistent and often just plain wrong lists that can mislead more than they inform. And Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the benefit of the readers, rather than to occupy those who apparently seem to sometimes think that the utility of a list is determined by the number of entries on it rather than the venerability and meaningfulness of its content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiplicative calculus[edit]

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

The justification for the existence of this Wikipedia article is articles which refer to it, such as Florack, Luc; Van Assen, Hans (2011). "Multiplicative Calculus in Biomedical Image Analysis". Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision. 42: 64–75. doi:10.1007/s10851-011-0275-1. That article, on the second page, says

It is not difficult to show that ...  ln f*(x) = (ln f)'(x)

This can be taken as the definition of *. This is indeed a correct formula for the action of the operator d/dx when y=f(x) if we use u=ln(y) as a coordinate. But even here it is written in idiosyncratic notation. The normal, and very very old, way to write the action of d/dx on f(x) coming from its action on ln(f(x)) is to write write ln*(d/dx)(f). That is to say, differentiation by x is pulled back via the function ln before you apply it to f. There are many references to many standard calculus texts which explain this, and physicists' notion of how vector fields (which they call 'covariant tensors of rank one') 'tranform' when you change variable. Such as page 28 of the book 'The very basic theory of tensors.' The theory of manifolds is even more general, and describes tangent fields without needing to choose *any* coordinate.

An existing Wikipedia article vector field already describes this, "This representation of a vector field depends on the coordinate system, and there is a well-defined transformation law in passing from one coordinate system to the other." If someone wants to improve Wikipedia's treatment of the subject, someone can insert the formula there where it is needed.

The article of Florak and Van Assen does exist, but despite the title, the article does not, and could not, make any substantial use of a notion that 'multiplicative calculus' is any different than ordinary calculus. Because ordinary calculus already subsumes 'multiplicative calculus.' Except in a few textbooks, the real line which occurs as the domain of single variable functions does not have any operation of multiplication *or* addition. It has a smooth structure only. The distinction between 'multipicative' versus 'additive' calculus is nonexistent except with reference to expository texts which make the simplifying assumption that the actual real *number line* happens to be the domain of single-variable functions; and the publication in reference [4] could not possibly be notable. Just because a research article is published and refers to something does not make that thing notable. Wikipedia does not have an encyclopaedic command of all strains of astrology, for example.

The notion that there is such a separate subject as 'multiplicative calculus' which is any different than ordinary calculus would rest on the idea that *whatever* variable y one is tempted to use, it is always better (or different) to use ln(y) instead.

If I can give an analogy, suppose I say, addition is good, but some numbers have no predecessor, so I am going to define "augmented addition" which is defined by saying x*y + 1 = (x+1) + (y+1) Then we see x*y = x+y+1 and we can think of this as adding the successors. Well, I've only conjugated ordinary addition by the successor function.

In the case of 'multiplicative calculus' which recommends using log(y) in place of y, the process could of course be repeated, one could say, it is always better to use log(log(y)) and so-on. It is like calling functions 'logarithmic functions' which are of the form ln o f and insisting that you need a whole separate theory about 'logarithmic functions.' Seriously, it is like the theory of elements of groups which are preceded by the inverse of some other element. It is not a subject. And if articles were published by referring in a complimentary way to the subject, it is just either sad or a corrupt use of the refereeing process. Not that the originators of 'multiplicative calculus' would be to blame, but just vulnerable.

Sadly, also, in situations like this, there is the possibility that the only reason such references were ever published is because an article only needs one referee to be accepted, and editors are not always conversant with the subjects of articles in their journals.

As a postscript, the notion that 'multiplicative calculus' is 'scale invariant' is prejudiced by a particular notion of what should be the group of scale transformations. This whole subject was clarified beginning with work of Cartan, described here for instance http://www-math.mit.edu/~helgason/Paper45.pdf, and the algebra of vector-fields invariant under a group of transformations is an existing and very old subject, including symmetries that are not required to commute, and which have various physical interpetations. Createangelos (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

17 March 2020

Dear Createangelos,

The article “Multiplicative calculus” should not be deleted.

Multiplicative calculus Is different from classical calculus. It provides alternatives to classical calculus in the same way, for example, that the geometric average provides alternatives to the arithmetic average.

As clearly indicated by the many items in the Reception section, multiplicative calculus and non-Newtonian calculus have been well-received by researchers, and have been applied in a wide variety of subjects by applied mathematicians, scientists, and engineers worldwide. Please read these items carefully.

As indicated in the History section, multiplicative calculus is a “widely recognized theory with applications.”

From: Smithpith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithpith (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It's great that we have an expert on board. Can you please give some clarification for what this sentence ought to mean, "Infinitely many non-Newtonian calculi are multiplicative." Then infinitely many of them are additive? Shouldn't the additive ones be the basis for readers to understand the theory (in the same way that there shouldn't *only* be an article about geometric means)? The multiplicative ones come from these by the substitution which you well know, even if not all engineers/economists do. In clarifying what are the infinity of additive non-Newtonian calculus theories: should non-Newtonian really be defined here to mean nothing besides that there are inverse notions of differentiation and integration? So by this article any pair of bijections like adding 1 and subtracting 1 comprise a non-Newtonian theory of calculus? Why does the history section leave out Heaviside calculus, Laplace transforms, etc? Is this an alternative history? Does it include Stochastic calculus? Also, it is strangely npov to have a 'Reception' section in a Math article talking about all the people who like and approve of the subject. Also, it just isn't right to have a whole article about how d/dx commutes with addition while {1\over x}d/dx commutes with scalar multiplication, and how much people love learning about that, and ignore the general issue of symmetry and differentiation whose history predates anything in the article.

There might be material that can be rescued, but serious errors would have to be fixed. In the section 'Relation to classical calculus' you say that A and B are canonically isomorphic with R as an ordered field. This would require a restriction on the cardinality of A and B. The sentence "one can define the following (and other) concepts of the *-calculus: the *-limit of f at an argument a, f is *-continuous at a, f" has no content since the definitions are not given. Why have a huge long article about how important some definition is, and how well-received it is, and how the whole history of it is due to you and your collaborators, without including that important definition in the article? You say that you use the 'natural operations, natural orderings and natural topologies' on A and B. If they are uniquely naturally isomorphic with R you can identify them with R, and then when represented as 'subsets' of R but not subfields, this chooses two embeddings of the underlying set of R into R. Then you take the embeddings to be log and exp as a roundabout way of describing the substitution y=e^u?

Anyway, you really have to address why the content is notable enough to direct Wikipedia readers to pages upon pages of very recent testimonials about the `reception' of why {1\over x}d/dx is invariant under scalar multiplication -- a special case of Cartan's type of analysis which would be un-known only to the weakest applied researchers -- and has a history section which credits authors from the 1960's til 2019 for all of `non-Newtonian' calculus, ignoring all earlier authors including Sohus Lie, Elie Cartan, Killing, Klein, Dieudonne, and even Cartan who is the person who actually did originate the substitution y=e^u which this article features, but decades earlier.Createangelos (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Most of the above discussion is misplaced and should appear in article talk page. This page must be devoted to discuss whether the nominated article satisfies Wikipedia rules that Wikipedia articles must satisfy. So, please, restrict this discussion to this aspect. D.Lazard (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Despite of a large number of references, this article is not reliably sourced (see WP:Reliable sources). All references are WP:Primary sources and most of them are not really published. Although, this is an article of mathematical analysis, I have not found in the reference list any article that has been published in a non-predatory journal that uses to publish articles in this area. The lack of WP: Secondary sources strongly suggests that the article does not satisfy the WP:Notability criteria. In fact, multiplicative calculus is a WP:Fringe theory that is not recognized in the main stream of mathematics. Moreover, this is a trivial theory in the following sense. The exponential and the logarithm define an isomorphism between the additive group of the reals and the multiplicative group of positive reals. The multiplicative calculus is simply the transfer through this isomorphism of some concepts of calculus that use the additive structure of the reals. It follows that every theorem of multiplicative calculus is a corollary of the corresponding theorem of usual calculus (this is what I mean as a trivial theory). D.Lazard (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

J. Donald Wilson[edit]

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

No significant coverage or secondary sources for a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep. The creator of The Whistler indeed meets WP:Notability (people)#Creative professionals #3. May meet GNG when proper BEFORE is completed. I will add sources to the article to spell it out. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Sources and info added. I need to check a few more radio books and then newspaper archives. For the old time radio newbies: The Whistler was a long-running, popular radio show that was also adapted for films and television. J. Donald Wilson created the character. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Where the Embers Fall[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. I could not find any RS coverage about this band. Biscuit3413 (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm also nominating the band's album and single as per davidwr from the last nomination.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Cierny Sery[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The article has no citations and two external links, one is dead and other clearly not RS. A Google search revealed nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Jamiatul Qasim Darul Uloom Al-Islamiah[edit]

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

Non notable Islamist seminary in India. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep. The subject is notable. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep poor referencing. — Hammad (Talk!) 14:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Madrasatul Islah[edit]

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

Non notable Islamic seminary. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Klang Valley[edit]

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

Unlike other similar articles like 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Sabah, this one isn't for a specific country or state within a country, but for a largely undefined region (the Klang Valley article calls it "There is no official designation of the boundaries that make up Klang Valley"). It is not feasible or useful to have these articles for areas that aren't clearly defined and which overlap with other, clearly delineated areas (like the states of Malaysia). Fram (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Rename to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Kuala Lumpur - I feel this article could be a little broader with the new name. Interstellarity (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fram:, name changed and that article will be expand sooner. angys (Talk Talk) 11:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Lao Division 1[edit]

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

Message left at talk page: Review under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process. Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I reviewed the article. In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. I don't see any such coverage or sourcing in the article, nor any alternative in the sports notability guideline that would even temporarily bypass that requirement. I have nominated the article for deletion which means that the community will decide the result. North8000 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to Football in Laos. Giant Snowman 19:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to Football in Laos. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep It is a second division of football in a relatively big asian country. Deleting it would be just another instance of systemic bias. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment hang on - we don't have notability guidelines for leagues, but we do for teams. And teams that play in top national cup tournaments are generally considered notable. This is the second highest tier of club football in a nation where football is very popular, and the league is national, whose teams play in national cups. How could we be in a situation where clubs in a league are generally considered notable, but the league isn't? Is there really no coverage of this league, that would achieve GNG? Nfitz (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If somebody finds sources that satisfy wp:GNG it could be recreated.North8000 (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

How User:North8000 isn't that WP:Systemic Bias? Nfitz (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that objectively applying Wikipedia's standards represents avoidance of bias. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Then how can you delete this User:North8000? The standard in WP:FOOTYN is that a team is notable if it plays in national cups - and teams in this (the second highest level of soccer) in Laos play in the national cup. How could we possibly be in a situation where a team is notable, but the league they primarily play in isn't? Sure, sources would help - and they are probably out there somewhere ... though I don't even know where to start looking. Nfitz (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

First you should understand that I am just trying to do my job properly which ended up with putting it here for others to decide, and possibly expressing an opinion as (merely) one of those people. The relevant guidelines here WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). The item which you are linking to is not a policy or a guideline, it is an essay. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It does reflect where the community is on individual teams now, for some time. It's unheard of for a league to not be notable if it's teams are. It's unheard of for the second-highest league of a nation where football is a very popular sport to not be notable. This would not be happening if the nation was English-speaking with an accessible media. Please withdraw this biased nomination now. Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not seeing a clear consensus for keep, redirect or delete here. There seems to be some sourcing in the article which could support GNG, but needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Industrias Lácteas Asturianas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This entry is functionally the same as the one already existing in Spanish language Wikipedia. Seems that consistency in what is allowed should flow equally regardless of language.

I didn’t see a reason given for deletion. What is the logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbmas01 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This firm appears to be known more under their brand-name "Reny Picot" and sometimes as "ILAS". I have added a couple of references, one of which is also available in English here. I have not yet decided whether they are sufficient for WP:NCORP but it is certainly close. AllyD (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep: In addition to the articles now referenced in the article, there is also a fairly detailed history of the firm in El País (2014). Overall, enough I think for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Byron Cole[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. There are some coverage about the book he authored but they are not enough to demonstrate notability. Hitro talk 07:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 13:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sōri to Yobanai de[edit]

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

The subject is a tv comedy in Japan, sourced only to Amazon (selling the box set), a tv listings page and a tvdb. The related ja.wiki article does not have any better sources, so nothing here to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer: From lack of discussion, this nomination appears to have no quorum. It seems no previous PRODs, previous AfD discussions, previous undeletions, or a current redirect, so this nomination appears to be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2019-11 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the bot. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 13:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Qiddiya circuit[edit]

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

This article was created prematurely. The circuit is a planned construction project that will not be ready for at least three years. There is no evidence of any contract between an event promoter and a racing category. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 13:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Immaculate Heart of Mary School, Malabon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL/WP:ORG and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

Alie Layus[edit]

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

Layus is a minor model and singer. There is only one source in the article, and that is not enough to pass GNG. The article has existed for over 10 years and has no indication of getting improved. It was nominated for deletion 7 years ago, but due to low participation in the deletion discussion, it was kept as no consensus John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

National Scientific Council on the Developing Child[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The content here does not include enough content to establish notability. Two sources are cited now. One is self published and the other is about something other than this topic, and I am not seeing this org profiled in that source. Fails WP:GNG based on available evidence. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete based on detectable coverage. This seems to be an active research center of more than ten year's standing, and they are producing a lot of reports and working papers. However, probably because none of these ever seem to have been published in peer-reviewed journals, there's hardly any mention of this body in the scientific literature, and very few other mentions on the web that are not primary. Productive + low profile = not good article material, unfortunately. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 13:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Christian Democratic Federation[edit]

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

It has been a politically irrelevant alliance. The very few available sources cite a founding meeting, but, despite it, the (small) political parties mentioned always acted individually, therefore de facto the alliance has never been active. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

Punchline (character)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks any kind of independent notability besides Comic Book Resources and Screen Rant dominating the article. This article could be pure fancruft that is almost entirely primary sourced. Pahiy (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete – No sufficient secondary sources available to establish notability. SerTanmay (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep This nominator description is extremely misleading, to say the least. It literally says "This article lacks reliable secondary sources except for the reliable secondary sources it cites." And it lobs out the accusations of "fancruft" and "primary sources" even though there are no primary sources used and there is literally no cruft or plot summary in the article at all; it's entirely written from a real-world perspective. The article is a stub right now, which can and should be expanded in the future, but that's no reason to delete it. The article is supported by reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage, which establish that it passes WP:GNG, and there are a plethora of other sources out there (more and more each day) not currently in the article that could be used for future expansions, including (but not limited to) the stories below my signature. — Hunter Kahn 12:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Neither WP:ONEEVENT nor WP:TOOSOON are technically right for this article, but they summarize my opinion pretty well anyway. The character is new. Every source is less than two months old. Give it some time and see if the character sticks. This wouldn't be the first time a new character is promoted as the NEXT BIG THING and flops. I'd be moving to draft so editors don't have to start from scratch if the character has staying power. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- By your own admission, neither of those two guidelines apply here, and a WP:CRYSTALBALL supposition that this character may or may not decline in popularity isn't a valid deletion argument either. You can feel free to nominate it for deletion again in the future if you think it's appropriate at that time, but the standard here is WP:GNG, and the simple truth is that it passes it. — Hunter Kahn 13:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  - If any one is using a crystal ball, I believe it's you. There's no reason to assume Punchline will continue to receive this volume of coverage (or, indeed, any coverage). I linked to one example of a character that was highly promoted and temporarily traded high but failed to thrive long term. I can list more. Superhero universes are littered with duds. The current coverage is insufficient to establish lasting notability, only temporary interest in a fictional element, hence my reference to two guidelines that detail this idea without being about fictional characters specifically. I acknowledge that I could be wrong, which is why I mentioned saving this as a draft. And the simple truth is that if the character clearly passed GNG, we wouldn't be here. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    - I'm making no predictions one way or the other about the character's future popularity. I'm simply utilizing existing reliable secondary sources, the significant coverage from which show that the subject satisfies WP:GNG, and since notability is not temporary, the article does not need to pass some sort of user-imposed guideline of future "lasting notability" in order to exist. — Hunter Kahn 17:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
      - For context, as of this writing the character has appeared in exactly one published comic book. That's one issue of Batman out of a series with 856 numbered installments, plus annuals, miniseries, and other comics starring the character like Detective. No amount of fan press surrounding that issue's release will demonstrate notability. It's WP:ROUTINE coverage and there's no reason to assume there will be WP:LASTING effects. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
        Coverage in secondary sources is the guiding factor of WP:GNG, not a count of how many issues the character has appeared in so far, or will in the future. I still believe any speculation on your part about the character's lasting effects is a WP:CRYSTAL issue, but we will obviously have to agree to disagree. — Hunter Kahn 19:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep per the sources listed, which demonstrate notability, at least at this point. I think the dueling crystal balls can be set aside for now. The character may grow in popularity and continue, or not. We can re-evaluate whether there's WP:SUSTAINED coverage after some time has passed. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, SUSTAINED is a more applicable link than the two I previously listed. I'll keep that in my back pocket for the future. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think there is technically enough to satisfy GNG; however, I don't think that necessarily means a standalone article is necessary (or desirable). I'll defer that to potential merge discussions down the line outside AfD, though. I would like to point out, though, that (character) might not be the best disambiguator per this article about additional characters and publications. Consider moving it to Punchline (DC Comics) per WP:NCC. While you could argue that the other two characters don't have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them, it would still probably be cleaner and still conform to WP:NCC#Between characters of different publishers. I personally interpret WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as being more applicable to cases of dropping a parenthetical disambiguator (which doesn't apply here).
This was also an interesting read and seems to support Argento Surfer's concerns, but time will tell, I suppose. Joker's Daughter did end up with a page (for better or worse... I don't actually know). -2pou (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Draft or redirect to some applicable list. The sources above are a bunch of low-weight topical pop-culture dribble for the most part. It's not like they cannot be used, but they shouldn't be the core of an article. CBR shouldn't be used at all in my opinion after reading some of their listicles that clearly show they have no editorial oversight going by how much they get wrong or just plain make up. TTN (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- CBR experienced a big drop in quality after being sold in 2016. Aside from reviews and anything by Brian Cronin, I no longer find them reliable. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak delete. Interesting. I would have expected the article to be much longer and fancrufty, but the sources are actually better than for many lengthy pieces of fancruft. Still, there is not much outside of WP:PLOT, a bit about people cosplaying as her and such. No real reception, significance, or any hint of scholarly analysis. WP:TOOSOON, if you can say so about a comic book character. Maybe we can have a good article about her in few years if she becomes more famous, maybe gets portrayed in the Joker sequel or such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment A few other new sources available about this character, beyond those identified above and featured in the article, can be found below. — Hunter Kahn 17:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of new sources above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say they have the same problem of being overly-topical and really just inheriting notability from the Joker. It's certainly reasonable to think that the character will end up truly notable down the line simply due to being around such a major character, but it belongs on a list until then. TTN (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

BallerAlert[edit]

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

Not notable, and the nearest thing to independent coverage is the minor negative coverage. The Forbes article is by "a conributor"-- that means, in practice, a press agent. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --MarioGom (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Draftify When I approved this out of AfC it hinged on the Forbes article which I didn't realize was an independent contributor not directly affiliated with Forbes, so its premature admission to mainspace is my fault and not the page creators. As such, I'm suggesting it be draftified as to not punish the original page creator. I think it has a chance of being notable, seems as if the blog is quoted quite a bit in many mainstream outlets which in and of itself does not denote notability, but certainly helps its cause and is enough to justify it being allowed to incubate. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Chen Award[edit]

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

Scientific award in genomics. No readily apparent notability (WP:GNG). A Google search yields the occasional mention and such things as press releases of universities congratulating themselves on winning it. I'd suggest a merger to Human Genome Organisation, which awards it, but that article's notability also appears questionable.

Searching for sources is also complicated by the existence of the Peter P. Chen Award, an award in computer science, but confusingly this article asserts that this (genomics) award is also called the "Peter P. Chen Award". Sandstein 10:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep I made the page for the Peter P. Chen Award right before making the page for the Chen Award and accidentally forgot to drop the "Peter P." from the intro when I was writing the second page; that's my fault and it has been corrected. If groups like RIKEN, EurekaAlert!, and Academia Sinica are publicizing the award results, then they believe the scientific world will be interested in this. ₪RicknAsia₪ 13:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 10:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Life in 2 Minutes[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. Only claims of notability are being an entry (but not winning) film festival that does not have a WP article (its website says that anyone can self-enter) and being recommended by some non-notable websites. Part of potential walled-garden for Elie Fahed. DMacks (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete: Article fails WP:NF, and has very few if any good sources. Dark-World25 (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Uttarakhand Youth Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Hemant Dabral^Talk 11:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment There is a merge tag on the article, this should be responded to before AfD. A merge with redirect makes sense. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No merge tag on article, cant find any addition of such on history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 13:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

CentUp[edit]

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

Short-lived startup which never gained relevance for crowdfunding and was funded poorly. "CentUp [2] got more than 15,000 $US in initial funding from an Indiegogo campaign, but it didn’t turn into a successful project and effectively vanished." [3] --Mmgst23 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 14:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Dehradun Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Hemant Dabral^Talk 11:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 14:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

William C. Crager[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in reliable sources, except for profiles [4][5] based on company press releases. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete Not enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Could setup as redirect to Envestnet. Mallardsfan19 (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 14:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Social Coalition[edit]

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

It is unclear whether this organization was ever officially founded or just announced, however the only information on it is the announcements of Maurizio Landini, the activity of this "social coalition" has been non-existent or irrelevant. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

Aventis Pharma[edit]

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

Unremarkable private company article created by UPE sock. Fails WP:NCORP. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Sanofi. It is just one out of five Sanofi subsidiaries in India ([6]). Worth coverage in Wikipedia but probably not a standalone article. --MarioGom (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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. – bradv🍁 14:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

John F. Remondi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in reliable sources, just passing mention and press-release bios. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

Democratic Initiative (Italy)[edit]

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

Politically irrelevant federation, the only information concerns its foundation. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

keep. Nomination without merit. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

comment @Staszek Lem: You write "Nomination without merit" but... can you explain why this page is encyclopaedically relevant? I don't see anything relevant on this "alliance", the only source concerns the alliance between UDEUR and RDC called Democratic Initiative, there are not other news about it, no known political activity, therefore it doen't seem to me a nomination without merit.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
COMMENT I stand corrected. There was a faction "Iniziativa democratica" within Democrazia Cristiana since 1951. In fact there is an article about it in Italian wikipedia. It is unclear how it is related to the one described here. Therefore to vote correctly, further research required:

nuke this one
expand it with it:Iniziativa democratica
have two articles, Democratic Initiative (1taly, 1951) , Democratic Initiative (1taly, 2008)

Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

comment I have now noticed the link with the Italian page on the Christian Democracy's faction, which instead, unlike this alliance, is surely relevant. The title "Democratic Initiative (Italy)" should only be used for that faction. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose to rewrite the page entirely, changing the current object with that of the Italian page (the faction of Christian Democracy). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

New Christian Democracy[edit]

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

It was a tiny and irrelevant party, there seems to be no noteworthy information. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

comment If it took part in elections, then keep, otherwise delete. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

comment It does not appear that this party ever took part in elections.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Dick Olsson[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. All the articles sources are either created by the subject or is a results table and he doesn't satifsy WP:NMOTOR (the only other thing you could qualify for notability under) I don't see any evidence to suggest that he is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.
SSSB (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SSSB (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Shannon Nichol[edit]

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

clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG Movedable (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak delete I recovered a few sources from an older version of the article (which looked more like a CV than a Wikipedia article). This Seattle Times magazine supplement article seems to have the most coverage of the subject. The remaining articles that appear to pass WP:RS have one or two mentions of the subject, and are more about the projects her firm has worked on. Landscape Architecture Magazine, Architects Newspaper, HuffPost, another Seattle times. We require multiple reliable sources with depth of coverage; one isn't enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Movedable: Is this how you treat your classmates? ——SN 54129 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep She clearly meets WP:ARCHITECT. For example, according to American Society of Landscape Architects, "Her mastery of the art, stewardship, and social responsibility of design practice has enriched and recharged communities, advanced understanding among municipalities and allied professionals, and consistently motivated design professionals to push boundaries...Her strong presence in prominent collaborations and articulate public voice have shifted how peers, clients, and the public think about the landscape architect’s role in complex urban projects." HouseOfChange (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Effort Administrator[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer: From lack of discussion, this nomination appears to have no quorum. It seems no previous PRODs, previous AfD discussions, previous undeletions, or a current redirect, so this nomination appears to be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its seven-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2011-07 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Abbie Kamin[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. While Houston is certainly a large and important enough city that its city councillors could be deemed notable if they were citing reliable source coverage in media, that's not what this is doing: it's referenced to two primary sources and a WordPress blog, none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all, and it essentially just verifies that she exists without documenting any evidence of her political significance. Even in major cities, the city councillors still are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie on bad sourcing just because they exist -- the inclusion test is still the depth of media coverage they can show to support a substantive article. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Kamin is a city councilor of a prominent international city this gives notability, even Bearcat agreed Houston was a prominent city. WP:ARTN states an articles poor sourcing and content does not diminish notability. In my opinion WP:NEXIST also applies here. If you go look at other city councilor articles like Vivian Moreno or Michael Scott Jr. their sourcing and content isn't much better or worse. This is a similar deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Baker (politician) for a city councilor of a city smaller than Houston which at the time had 1 sentence in it, the result was speedy keep. Notability does not depend on sourcing and content, Kamin is notable because she is a city councilor of a prominent international city and because of her coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment here are some WP:NEXIST sources that prove notability [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Week keep Based on the state of the article I'd say delete, but the fact is that she has reliable sources about her so that's a reason to keep. ⌚️ (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Shaheen Peerbhai[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Opening a bakery and writing a book doesn't make you automatically notable. Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

2019 New Orleans shooting[edit]

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

lacks notability and has no major impact on anyone YatesTucker00090 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak delete per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Shootings involving multiple victims unfortunately happens all the time in New Orleans, such as this sequence[16] from 4 days ago. The article incident was widely reported internationally, probably due to the multitide of tourists who happened to be present at the time, but no WP:LASTING coverage beyond the burst of reporting in early December has materialized, so the incident seems to lack historical perspective (WP:NOTNEWS, although it still might be too early to tell). StonyBrook (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG. There are several sources and many of them are national sources. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

United States v. Baine and Savarese[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Article is about a single odometer scam with no lasting effect or impact, poor coverage relying on local news and press releases, and no indication of importance. PROD was removed and contested. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 22:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom, this appears to be just a routine federal prosecution with no impact beyond a local news cycle. postdlf (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep as this has received multiple news articles about it. Also other court cases that are articles have less sources and are articles. This scam affected hundreds of people. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep RS exists and the case appears to be a landmark. Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment those who post Keep votes should probably give the links to the existing significant coverage. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- No need to as they are sourced/cited on the articles. (Even a google search pulls nearly a full page of information on the topic "Baine and Savarese".) Elijahandskip (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep - Landmark case with significant coverage. Analog Horror, (Speak) 04:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per postdlf. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. This is a trial court decision that has not received anything beyond local coverage. It's not a precedent at all - that would require legal citations or an appellate case. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Rename to Baine and Savarese odometer scheme. The crime may be significant; the legal case is not, and is merely an aspect of the event. We have plenty of articles on scams and scandals that culminated in a legal prosecution, but which are structured to reflect the greater significance of the criminal event. BD2412 T 04:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip, Gene93k, Bbarmadillo, Analog Horror, Postdlf, and Bearian: BD2412 T 04:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This was investigated by the local news as early as 2014 (with the news reporting a case going back to 2011), and the early reporting only mentions Baine, so I revise my proposal and suggest moving it to Oscar M. Baine odometer tampering scheme. BD2412 T 15:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

List of defunct airlines of Cook Islands[edit]

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

Do we really need a list for one item? Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge No, a one-item list like this is pretty pointless. However, there is List of airlines of the Cook Islands (also a one-item list!), so merge the two? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sounds like a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge as suggested move into the main list. MilborneOne (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Viking Voyage[edit]

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

There are no sources cited. Viking Voyage is also an insignificant topic with very little content, other than to say when and where it existed (already covered in the Wild Adventures article). There are specs associated with the coaster, but these are insignificant as well. GoneIn60 (talk) 06:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Damed Imanov[edit]

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

Notability is under question. Doesn't meet criterias of WP:BLP Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Damed Imanov's article meets this criterion

Shortcut

WP:ANYBIO

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the progress medal really a medal that confers notability on its recipients? What was Imanov's "widely recognized contributions that is part of the enduring historical record in a spefific field" and what are the sources that show this accomplishment is widely recognized?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what his widely recognized contribution was. Just looking at who has received the progress medal, I see no evidence that receiving it is such a widely recognized mark of merit that people become notable for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Penta Security[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG,WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

SEIU Local 615[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Bold redirect reverted. WP:BRANCH applies. John from Idegon (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect I originally redirected this but it was reverted. No evidence of any sources indicating notability since that revert. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, your redirect target is wrong. Secondly, historical information on 615 should be maintained either in this article or in the article for 32BJ, the union 615 merged into. (As the largest local in the country, 32BJ definitely meets the notability standard.) The problem with deleting this article as things currently stand is that I count at least four facts that are not in either destination article. Thirdly, I think that readers would be better served by fixing the current article to represent both "New England 615", as it is currently known, and the historical Local 615. A good model is the article on the International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen, which is today also subsumed into 32BJ and known as the National Conference of Firemen and Oilers. Since SEIU Local 615 is a stub, though, maybe we should move the article to New England 615 and go from there. --JECE (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  - So it sounds as though you believe a redirect to SEIU 32BJ is most appropriate? I agree - and this was my original redirect! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    - Yes, sorry. My first point was directed at John from Idegon. I agree in principle with the redirect, but see my second point on the need to merge before we redirect. (I acknowledge that my third point is somewhat moot if nobody actually does the legwork to expand this article and investigate historical notability.) --JECE (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 06:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Charles W. Smith[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as a county treasurer and town selectman. These are not "inherently" notable roles for the purposes of WP:NPOL; local politicians need to show some genuine substance and significant press coverage to support it, and are not automatically entitled to have articles just because it's possible to offer technical verification that they existed. The only sources here, however, are a glancing namecheck in a county history book that features no substantive content about him, and his routine death notice in the newspaper classfieds. A local politician needs to show much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing really of note with respect to this subject (who, as it happens, is actually named "Charles H. Smith, and died in 1906, not 1916). BD2412 T 13:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete Norfolk County is one of the most over covered places in Wikipedia, as a result of the affliction of Dedhamania. County officials are not inherently notable, and there is no evidence that Smith is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Pkah Thgall Meas[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Couldn't find any coverage or any mentions on notable sources. Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Or transfer the small amount of content to the actress Vichara Dany's page. The movie poster could be moved there too, as she is deceased and has no portrait; she is the woman dominating the poster. The simple fact is that with Cambodian articles it is frequently impossible to find reliable sources for pre-genocide Cambodia, because of the genocide itself. I don't feel comfortable erasing anything from before that has managed to survive, even in this sourceless form. Jacqke (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Kolabtree[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have created for promotional purposes. Couldn't get much information from Google. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

List of private schools in San Jose, California[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I can find no reason why this “List of X in Y” should be notable. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, there is no reason why a list of schools in a particular area should be separated into public/private. Also consider adding List of private schools in Long Beach, California to the AfD. There are also plenty more: [17]. Ajf773 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep per WP:LISTN the list aides navigation and is informational Lightburst (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
KEEP There are 14 entries with their own Wikipedia article. This list is thus a valid list article as it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 05:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Be consistent with similar lists. I haven't been following things lately, but 5-10 years ago such lists would almost always be kept or merged into a "parent" article about the city. Wikipedia consensus can change over time and it may be that these days such pages are routinely deleted.
Keep if the stats are updated. As of right now the stats are pretty old. Maybe such articles were kept in the past, but because of the newness of the website, the stats weren't so old. It would be interesting to have both the current and the old stats with changes in enrollment calculated out. Otherwise redirect this to San_Jose,_California#Primary_and_secondary_education.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Good Grief, Idaho[edit]

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

This news segment tells the whole story: started as a store named Addie's, renamed (supposedly) in the 1950s after a remark by the purchaser's wife. Topos consistently show only this building. The store/whatever is still there, and I have to say that Hee Haw is not a reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep Just because a populated place is the size of one household and business doesn't mean that it's not notable; Monowi, Nebraska is even incorporated, and Nothing, Arizona is pretty clearly notable despite never having much more than a gas station. Good Grief appears to be in a similar position; between the Hee Haw reference and its consistent use as a placename (see [18] [19], and even a mention in Congress), it's notable as a community despite its very small size. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep Eh, those aren't good comparisons for small places: Monowi does have "legal recognition" and once had a lot more people, and Nothing seems to have SIGCOV. But GMaps does appear to show something of an actual community (independent of nearby places and not a housing development), not just one old grouch. Just don't create another article for "Addie" that appears next to it there...it's clearly the same place then. Reywas92^Talk 04:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Um, Addie IS right next to it, at least on the topos and according to GNIS. Going back into the 1960s, it shows up next to the tracks, and yes, there used to be a siding there, and Google at least believes in an "Old Addie Road". Trying to sort out all the structures is pretty much hopeless: the topo maps do appear to be in correspondence with contemporary aerial photos, and they show that the Addie buildings gradually disappear and that the buildings near the store start showing up in the late 1990s. Maybe this can be all combined into one place article, but I'm not sure how to write that at this point. However, I will reconsider this discussion and will probably withdraw it. Mangoe (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Lendale Johnson[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Only one article not from subject’s website. Plandu (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Plandu (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Plandu (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Stan Jones (mystery writer)[edit]

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

Unref blp which has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. No evidence he is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep Needs some love (from, uh, someone), but his books appear to be consistently reviewed in reliable sources such as The New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, People, Entertainment Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep A fine example of what you get out of the community's "consensus" that only certain parts of the encyclopedia are fair game for active collaboration while the remainder of entries are merely the vanity project of some individual editor or another, otherwise described as a popularity contest. Something which is not very popular around here is the fact that a typical Google search will not tell you a whole lot about what was notable in the 1980s. Jones's website biography offers one very important clue: "After Kotzebue, I lived in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and then Anchorage again, working as a newspaper journalist. I won several major national awards for investigative stories that led to impeachment proceedings against one of Alaska’s governors, and for coverage of the Exxon Valdez oil spill." The Alaska governor in question was Bill Sheffield. That story and the oil spill (as well as a host of other stories coming from Alaska in the 1980s which have received little or no acknowledgement on the encyclopedia) were both very significant. If the Sheffield impeachment story is not as obvious to the average person compared with the oil spill, the most basic of Google searches turns up contemporary stories from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and UPI. That this article does not acknowledge any of this and dwells too much on a series of mystery novels is evidence that collaboration is lacking on this website, enabling someone's POVish exercise in myopia instead. If it's been tagged as NN for 12 years and my watchlist shows regular evidence of editor who have ample time for Wikipedia, I would think that someone could have arrived at this conclusion long ago. At the very least, the nominator could have performed the necessary amount of WP:BEFORE other editors are obviously performing. Clearing a maintenance category backlog merely for the sake of clearing a backlog ≠ a net benefit to achieving "the sum of all human knowledge". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

RadioKAOS, most of what you have written above is irrelevant and assuming bad faith (e.g. 'someone's POVish exercise in myopia...') or suggesting I am 'clearing a maintenance category backlog merely for the sake of clearing...' It isn't fair. Please stick to commenting on the notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

De Vorm[edit]

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

I've been on the fence about this one for weeks now and figure that it's time to bring it to AfD to get a definitive consensus as to whether it's notable or not. My impression based on the provided sources is that WP:NCORP has not been met, and I was unable to find more coverage online (although the fact that "de vorm" is a common phrase in Dutch did not help). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Pixel Toys[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The only example of significant coverage provided is [20], which still relies heavily on an interview with the founder. Other coverage doesn't discuss the subject to any appreciable depth. I wasn't able to find anything better online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, can you see the refideas I have listed on the talk page? Some of them are interviews but others are decent in-depth, including the local paper and MCVUK. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
AngusWOOF, I hadn't, which was my bad. That having been said, they all appear to be primarily interviews. I'm less confident that this is non-notable than I was before looking at that list, but ultimately I think I still come down on the non-notable side. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Duglas Alliance[edit]

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

Non-notable - Google News search shows negligible significant coverage in reliable sources. Also reads as advertising. Paul W (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment, there's some news about it and shady deals or something on Google News. Although they seem to be in Russian. I'd be hesitant to vote delete on a none English company that already has a few articles written about them and might have more that we aren't privy to because of the language barrier when searching for sources. For all we know there could be tons of articles about it in Russian news papers that we just can't find through a basic, English slanted Google Search. I'm willing to change my mind and vote delete though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Totally agree with you Adamant1. Trehe are so much news about Duglas Alliance in other languages (Russian, Ukrainian). I think we can’t delete an article about a company building hydropower plants. --Abcrad (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Hi, Abcrad, are the Russian/Ukrainian news items more than brief mentions, and/or reiterations of company press releases? I looked at one item in Russian using Google Translate and it had just one passing mention of the firm. By the way, a more substantial article in English is a Kyiv Post story about alleged corruption in Equatorial Guinea, and mentions Duglas Alliance's project appointment "despite having no experience in the sector" (if the article is kept, this should be referenced for balance/nPOV). Is the company or its people covered in other (Russian?) Wikis? Paul W (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC) - I have attempted to improve the article; article sources include paid-for directory links, and minor mentions in conference listings, etc, which, in my view, do not establish notability. Paul W (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Hi, Adamant1.

1. Russian/Ukrainian news contents more than brief mentions. For example: https://day.kyiv.ua/ru/article/ekonomika/40-let-demokraticheskoy-diktatury. 2. I asked for balance/nPOV (ltd -- not public company) and waiting for this. 3. Thanks a lot for improving the article! 4. Other (Russian?) Wikis: Sendje Power Station. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcrad (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC) --Abcrad (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The linked article mentions Duglas once - not substantial coverage. References to Duglas in the Russian article about Sendje include unreliable primary sources. English Wikipedia uses "Ltd" sparingly - often just in infoboxes to denote the legal entity. Paul W (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Hi, Adamant1. Thanks for the reply. Some sources added. --Abcrad (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

These press releases are unreliable sources (see WP:IIS); the government is the client and has a financial relationship with Duglas Alliance. Paul W (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are right, this indicates the scale of the company.

Delete, Tried to give it a chance, but no reliable source materialized :( --Adamant1 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep. I disagree. This is a major energy project. This has been written on the government websites of Equatorial Guinea. --Abcrad (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment As Paul W said above, government websites aren't reliable secondary sources since they aren't independent of the subject due to having contract with them. Plus, they aren't experts in the field anyway. Even if they where though, the particular citations in the article still aren't enough since they are mostly (or all) just brief mentions or trivial coverage. Also, the whole "it's notable because it's a major company" is hand waving. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete. I originally nominated for deletion and then did my best to identify reliable and independent sources that might denote notability. But, like Adamant1, I don't feel notability is established. Paul W (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Dear Paul W, give me some time. I'll find out the reliable and independent sources. I mean Russian business media like Forbes. Thank you. Abcrad (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Abcrad thinks he can find sources if he had more time, so giving him a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Dear RoySmith. The source added. Thank you!--Abcrad (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Files[edit]

File:Allen Thomas Jr.jpg[edit]

tagged OTRS received for over 3 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 00:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Azad Khan, actor of Hala movie 2019.jpg[edit]

tagged OTRS received for over 3 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 00:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Music director Deepak Agrawal.jpg[edit]

tagged OTRS received for over 3 months. After reviewing the associated OTRS ticket, I believe it is unlikely that permission will ever be confirmed FASTILY 00:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Drafts of political history overviews by decade[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Drafts of political history overviews by decade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. This cat will be empty most of the time, and have perhaps one article at some points, when there is such a draft and people care enough to actualy categorize it (which usually doesn't happen with drafts). Fram (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - far too specific. I had not realised that drafts were categorised at all, as they are not in article space. Oculi (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As drafts can be (and are) categorized on their talk pages (e.g. Category:Draft-Class Asian military history articles) I think "reader-side" categorization of drafts is unnecessary and could cause of wasted effort and confusion. DexDor^(talk) 12:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Decades in british politics[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Decades in british politics to Category:Decades in British politics

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization error. I'm not convinced that this isn't overcategorization and that we shouldn't simply upcat this, but if we have it, it should be corrected. Fram (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Upmerge to Category:Politics overviews by decade, which is not vast enough to need subcatting (and is itself bizarrely named, as we do not have Category:Politics overviews, and it is not a subcat scheme 'by decade'). 'Political overviews' perhaps. Oculi (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Norfolk County treasurers[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Norfolk County treasurers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. This is not an WP:NPOL-passing political office, so it isn't the core of anybody's notability claim -- five of the people here are notable for holding office at the state level at other times in their careers, not for this per se, and the other two are up for deletion as they have no strong notability claim at all. There's simply no need to categorize people for a political office that isn't central to their notability. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment - if kept it will need renaming. This is about Norfolk County, Massachusetts, one of numerous counties called Norfolk (including Norfolk). Grutness...wha? 05:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Southland Conference sports tournament venues[edit]

Category:Southland Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues
Category:Southland Conference Softball Tournament venues
Delete as being conference tournament venues are clearly non-defining trivial characteristics. 71.56.244.35 (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Haligonian[edit]

Haligonian → Halifax (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Haligonians → Halifax, Nova Scotia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I don't know where these should point to, but they should share the same target. feminist (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Target both to DAB page Halifax as {{R from ambiguous term}}. Haligonian is a demonym both for Halifax, Nova Scotia and for Halifax, West Yorkshire, as mentioned in those articles. Narky Blert (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguate at Haligonian, redirecting the plural there. A draft is provided. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Singh[edit]

Joshua Singh → Raju Singh#Personal life (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

inappropriate probably coi redirect for child of performer DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

On a related note should the kids names even be mentioned on the article?--69.157.252.96 (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If the article is deleted it should really be considered for salting, article has been repeatedly created and deleted. Greyjoy^talk 05:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not "requests for deletion" (see WP:XfD). This is "redirects for discussion", where we discuss about redirects that may point to a wrong article. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete. I'd want more useful information in the target article than an unsourced mention that he is a member of WP:NN band to justify a Keep !vote. Probably too soon to consider WP:SALTing (redirects can be salted, either to prevent recreation or to prevent retargetting) - the battle has only been running since 16 March. Narky Blert (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Templates and Modules[edit]

Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Europe medical cases[edit]

Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Europe medical cases (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_data/International_medical_cases (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/Europe medical cases with Template:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_data/International_medical_cases.
Incorrectly formatted merge proposed by another user: correcting nom. with no opinion UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment. People seem to be keeping the global table template more up-to-date than the Europe one, and have done a reasonable split of Europe into geographical sub-regions. However, including the Europe part in the Europe prose article would still be nice, even though it's horizontally quite large now. In fact, a reasonable case could be made for splitting the Europe template, because keeping it up-to-date is becoming heavy work as we seem to be entering an exponential growth phase in Europe (with the main exception being Poland, which is miraculously SARS-CoV-2-free, apart from suspected cases). An ideal solution would be if the "global" table included continental or sub-continental table components, in a way that continental or sub-continental tables could be used as templates without having to show the full global one. I suspect that this could be risky unless the method of doing this forces editors at any of the "sub" levels from making edits that mess up the structure of the combined super- or super-super-table. Boud (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on comment I suspect such a template would indeed be easy to mess up and hard to maintain, and I don't even know how to start creating that without making the existing international template a lot more complicated... Renerpho (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Having a table for Europe that can be used in the article about cases in Europe is useful. Please help keep it up to date! Renerpho (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I see a case for splitting out the international template by continent because of the sheer amount of data included and the lack of readability. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Please revert to the Rate Comparisons with Syncing the start date from the first 500 or 100 cases. This metric offers much more insight for comparing the ongoing outbreak between the different regions than Syncing the start date till the first 100 or 500 cases which offers a truncated view not necessaily indicative of the further development of the initial outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.214.142 (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Retire I think that changing the name - at least internally without a formal name change - to something like "in January and February 2020" and effectively freezing it as a resource to remain available for later studies for people (e.g. epidemiologists) who might find it useful. Boud (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:TV Tropes[edit]

Template:TV Tropes (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)

TV Tropes is not a valid external link, it's WP:ELNO. It's trivial, user-submitted and has no editorial oversight. I could've sworn I AfD'ed this a long time ago, but apparently not. Pinging @Masem, Lee Vilenski, Salvidrim!, Sergecross73, and Dissident93:. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I can think of some special cases where an EL to TV Tropes might be acceptable (on articles ABOUT tropes or where tropes are significantly covered) but in general it's an ELNO and doesn't need a template, which might implicitly encourage its use an EL. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 08:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thumperward/tropes: we still need to clean up rampant referencing, fwiw. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 12:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete There's nearly no moderated content on the site at all. IAR uses but no need for a template for those. --Masem (t) 17:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete but maybe turn it into a Wikimedia category, if it isn't already. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep but use the template page to indicate "acceptable" uses "(on articles ABOUT tropes or where tropes are significantly covered)". We can reiterate info about EL. I had used a TV Tropes EL without the template, which doesn't meet the "ABOUT" usage. StrayBolt (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even using it on articles about tropes, since every aspect of TV Tropes is not moderated. In contrast to Know Your Meme where there is a team of moderators and assigned users to write a meme's history, there's at least some oversight of that, there's nothing like that at TVT. --Masem (t) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep until it is shown that there is wider consensus such links should not be used and the temeplate is unused. Article content should not be removed the through the mechanism of TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete I love TVTropes as a fun time waster, but it is already an ELNO item, and shouldn't be supported by a template. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WT:VG and WT:TV have been notified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete as per nom, others above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Do we know where it's being used - if it is just on pages about tropes, I think that's a reasonable appropriate use. If it's being used everywhere, deleting it would discourage use. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:History of the Persian language[edit]

Template:History of the Persian language (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Persian language (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:History of the Persian language with Template:Persian language.

The template is being nominated because:

It is redundant and is barely used in any articles.
It does not provide much content within the few articles that include it and yet occupies a lot of space.
There is a more properly designed template (Template:Persian language) that could replace it.

—Rye-96 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Support, this seems entirely sensible given the two templates mentioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Support -- and I rarely support anything, so you know it's an eminently supportable position when I do. Jpbrenna (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle[edit]

Template:Infobox German railway vehicle (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) - 320 transclusions
Template:Infobox locomotive (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete) - 4057 transclusions

Propose merging Template:Infobox German railway vehicle with Template:Infobox locomotive.

The German template uses German-language parameter names; we normally allow this only for "shim" templates that must be substituted.

It also caters (mostly) for locomotives and (a few) rolling stock vehicles. The latter cases should be manually switched to {{Infobox train}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose unless the template is properly 'shimmed' so that it can be imported from German Wikipedia and automatically substituted as has been successfully done with other templates. In which case I'd be happy to support.Bermicourt (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Shimming could of course be done, is commonly done, and is not preclued by this proposal, so your empboldened "oppose" seems rather misplaced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as Bermicourt. This looks like a lot of pointless rote work for no advantage at all, other than the regular foolish consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per Bermicourt, on the understanding that it would be shimmed. No obvious reason to maintain a separate template for German locomotives only, and it's confusing for editors. Contra Andy Dingley, there are plenty of editors who enjoy pointless rote work; without it, I doubt the project would continue to exist. Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose we've been here before, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8#Template:Infobox German railway vehicle. {{Infobox German railway vehicle}} isn't just used for locos, it could be used for multiple-units, coaches or wagons. The idea is that an imported article starts off with {{Infobox German railway vehicle}}, and then is amended to use a more appropriate infobox. Those more appropriate infoboxes do include {{Infobox locomotive}}, but none of them are a straight drop-in replacement - manual assessment and adjustment is necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, we've been here before: the result of the discussion five years ago was no consensus. Do you suppose that we can never discuss the matter again, nor reach a consensus? As for the intention, the 320 current transclusons belie that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Support, in principle provided that all existing parameters of the subject templates are preserved in the merged template. Would this not work, Redrose64? Doug Mehus T·C 22:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Redrose64. This template started life as a translation-fork of the Infobox used by de.wiki, but it has not been kept up-to-date with changes to de:Vorlage:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug. I realised this when I tried to sprinkle some TLC on this template by starting to add TemplateData. Yes, this template does have issues - the Monthly Error Report that is now available via TemplateData seems to marking any parameter with an umlaut in its name as invalid even if it isn't; if you do a translation via the translation tool, you will have to put in the infobox afterwards as a cut-and-paste, as the de.wiki infobox is linked on Wikidata to Template:Infobox train. Having said all that, if the proposer is prepared to put in the hard graft and manually migrate the 320 instances, I won't revert his changes; but since the original concept of this template is as a aid to translation, I would oppose the merger even if there was only a handful of transculsions. — Iain Bell (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- "it has not been kept up-to-date with changes to :de:Vorlage:Infobox Schienenfahrzeug" then that is even less reason to keep it; it's not even useful as a shim. This is the English-language Wikipedia; we have a long-standing practice of replacing templates that don't work in English. "if the proposer is prepared to put in the hard graft" such conditionals are irrelevant. We have a number of volunteers who work on template mergers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Support per Pigsonthewing. This is English Wikipedia, we should not use German Wikipedia templates especially when they are out-of-date and not linked to the German template, so not even usefull for translating. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Support In the previous discussion, I supported the merge with some comments there about translation and fitting content into other infoboxes as appropriate. The German template was then, and I'm guessing is still now, used for more than just locomotives. We have other infobox templates for rail vehicles that are not locomotives, so as long as the correct English-language infobox template is used, I still support this. Slambo (Speak) 03:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. No reason to have a German language infobox here. The fact that we have over 300 transclusions of this means whatever intent this template had of being temporary, has failed. Whoever translates a page from the German wiki can take a few more minutes to also find the correct infobox. We also have a /Holding cell to take care of this process if anyone feels that a straight 1:1 conversion can't take place. --Gonnym (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a few more opinions on if it should be (re?)converted into a translation fork/shim or if it's better to just do away with it and start over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Miscellany[edit]

Draft:Shovansundar Bosu[edit]

Multiple copies of this were created in article space and in draft space by a now-blocked sockpuppeteer and self-promoter. Not eligible for G5 because created before any of the socks or the master were indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Luca Rubino[edit]

We should not just be declining drafts like these. Unless we want draftspace to be turned into a place for personal advertisements, we should remove them. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any personal advertisements since I took references from reliable business newspapers such as Forbes. The articles are independent and written by Forbes journalist, why should Wikipedia remove resources like that?Khiro17 (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete as promotion. Tell Khiro17 (talk · contribs) to get experience editing existing articles before trying to write a new one. I am suspecting a WP:COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]

Southern Pacific 9010[edit]

Keep consensus was heavily influenced on contributors favouring the subject rather than policy. Majority of discussion focused on the notion of WP:ILIKEIT and not about the general quality of sourcing and overall notability of subject. None of the contributors that I queried responded to my concerns, IMO meaning they had no evidence to give. This should have closed as a no consensus or relisted. Appreciated this hasn't been deleted but it should have been on the lack of sourcing. Nightfury 11:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Void close and relist although overturning to a flat-out delete or merge wouldn't be unreasonable. The article is a poster-child for WP:FANCRUFT and the AfD was a disaster. I have great sympathy for Pax:Vobiscum who had to close it, but making the tough calls is what we admins get paid to do. The vast majority of the arguments in the AfD are classic WP:ATA. If we have pages on ... I do not see why ... cannot have their own is WP:OTHER. The page has existed for over eleven years is WP:OLDARTICLE. It is the last of it’s type is a good argument to disqualify WP:A7, but nothing beyond that. All of those types of arguments should have been ignored. Looking at the sources (both in the article and presented at the AfD), they're deplorable. A mix of Facebook (seriously?), fan blogs, etc. The Trains Magazine articles at least look reasonable, but they're press releases (note the Home/News/News Wire/... slugs), which are generally not considered to contribute to WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics Milestones The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R Creation Help Vital articles Today's articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Editor assistance Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education New pages patrol General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Books Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wikis Wiki markup
Media Category Templates