This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) 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]

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles[edit]

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 February	20 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

İkinci Ərəbcəbirli[edit]

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

Proposing a merge into stub page about the municipality Ərəbcəbirli PenulisHantu (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. PenulisHantu (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment you don’t need an AfD discussion for this you can just go ahead and merge it. Mccapra (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Birinci Ərəbcəbirli[edit]

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

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

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

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

Wheeler Place, Arizona[edit]

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

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

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

Tristis[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion, I submit that Tristis should be deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree that it makes no sense to have a Disambiguation article for adjectives like tristis that form part of a name. However, I could see this fitting comfortably under the guidelines for a stand-alone List article, i.e., "List of binomial names with tristis". --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Suresh Bhatt[edit]

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

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

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

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

Richard Mounce[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi V. Melwani[edit]

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

The subject is not notable and the previous edits seem to have been executed by someone close to the subject. Syriusa (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Syriusa (talk) 12:13, 19 February 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 February 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 19 February 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 February 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:05, 19 February 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 February 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

K Money[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:PERP. No awards or charted songs. The sources cited are record lists, or local rap publications which make trivial mention of him. I was unable to locate any biographical information in reliable secondary sources, and newspaper reports of his alleged criminal behavior do not support notability as either a musician or a perpetrator. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Lindsay Wesker[edit]

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

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

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

Delete. No good coverage. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ádám Pozsonyi[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Hiralal Chakraborty[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presscription[edit]

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

There is unpaid coverage for the company and products in Forbes, The Independent, and The Telegraph which are all notable publications. Unclear how that fails GNG Jana Fisher - talk 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No significant coverage in reliable sources - there's coverage of the market, and some brief mentions and press releases. There's coverage in blogs etc, these aren't typically detailed information about the company, and aren't reliable sources (especially considering their all probably being paid for). Overall, fails GNG and NCORP ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

PES Society[edit]

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

Can't find significant coverage. A few mentions and an interview, but nothing that meets GNG ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There is more coverage that can be provided but does not necessarily warrant being mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilebrahim (talk • contribs)

See articles here https://esportscentral.co.za/other/catching-up-with-the-pes-society/

And here https://esportscentral.co.za/fifa/king-of-the-castle-pes-vs-fifa-tournament-announced/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilebrahim (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Risa Honma[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jaber Al Ansari[edit]

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

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

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

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

Inside the Criminal Mind[edit]

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

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

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

Paraná Banco[edit]

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

I nominated this article for deletion because:

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

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

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

Speedy delete under WP:A2

This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this project page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion.

Ravi V. Melwani[edit]

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

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

Delete The subject is not notable and the previous edits seem to have been executed by someone close to the subject. Syriusa (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete No references thus doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Angus1986 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete No references and not notable. Name search reveals not very pleasant complaints and stories. Tabletop123 (talk)

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

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

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

Indrani Mishra[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Digital Journal[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable publication of...less than stellar repute as of late.

I can find no meaningful coverage of it in archives (including printed newspapers), other journals or books. The existing sources are...not great and clearly not independent. As an example this tech crunch piece has no author, this is a press release, this is really just about a data breach.

I don't know if it was originally the case but it doesn't appear that they have any editorial standards or oversight, though that's a discussion for WP:RSN for its use here. Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Shahra Razavi[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per Goldsztajn's rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Serangoon Public Library[edit]

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

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

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

Chowk Shaheedan[edit]

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

No coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Weak delete Appears to be a traffic circle, not a square. There may be a monument in the middle of it but short of coverage it would not be notable. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

'Weak Delete' - I was unable to find coverage specifically about the square; I only found discussion of events that happened at the square and most of these were opening shops, and other passing mentions. I tried searching on the Urdu but found nothing notable. If significant coverage is found, e.g. in the Urdu press, then please ping me. Ross-c (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep I had some luck and added 2 newspaper references from The News International and 1 reference from Zee News TV Channel website. Will keep looking, though, for more in-depth coverage and hopefully add it soon. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to Maqbool Bhat. Most of the article is talking about Maqbool Bhat, anyway. All sources discuss Maqbool Bhat and not the subject. No evidence of notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note further 2 of the sources have nothing to do with the subject of the article - it is sourcing relating to Bhat. The third mentions the subject once, apparently as the site of a protest - it does not discuss the subject in any detail. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Eerieconsiliation[edit]

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

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

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

Three albums by the same band, none with any strong claim of standalone notability per WP:NALBUMS or anywhere near enough strong reliable sourcing to clear WP:GNG in lieu. Albums are no longer automatically accepted as notable just because they were recorded by a notable artist, but must now clear stricter notability criteria (chart success, notable music awards, etc.) to warrant articles -- and even the band themselves have proven so poorly sourceable that they've now been redirected to their one independently notable member. One of these three articles is completely unreferenced, while the other two are referenced only to an AllMusic review -- which is a start, but not enough all by itself if it's the only reliable sourcing you can show. In a nutshell, to be notable enough for standalone articles under current standards, they need a lot more than just single-sourced verification that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect all to Rick White (musician) where they are already mentioned in the discography section. They could be viable search terms, but there does not appear to be enough coverage to support having them as independent articles. Aoba47 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep Added four references. Can't speak to the other albums mentioned above, but two of the references for this album consider it to be a "4-star" album, for whatever that is worth (AllMusic and The Stranger). I started editing again in summer 2019, and haven't really weighed in on many of these; my personal bias is that Wikipedia's true value resides with its millions of short, legitimately sourced articles, which attempt to cover everything under the sun. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm advocating only for Vague Premonition... Caro7200 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Martian Metals[edit]

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

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

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

Looking for sources produces nothing substantial. The "best" book result only confirms that it existed[1], and e.g. if one does find an article on the awards, the company again is only mentioned[2].

The 75 different Google hits[3] contain shops, personal webpages, fora, or fan sites, e.g. one of the best here is this one.

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

Also nominated are the following products from this company:

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

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

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

Delete all Myy first thought was that there might be a case for incorporating the content of all these articles into one, but I don't think even this would be be well enough sourced to establish notability. Fancruft in excelsis.TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep the company itself, as a notable and award-winning miniatures manufacturer. Merge the lines to it and delete the other articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep the company as the available sources meet GNG. Merge product lines into the company, per BEFORE C.4 and PRESERVE. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Autumn Phillips[edit]

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

I would be raising this regardless of her recent separation from her husband. This person does not appear to have any significant notability independent of her husband, who is himself not far above the threshold of notability. He is one of the less prominent grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II, and does not have any royal or noble title. See WP:NOTINHERITED. PatGallacher (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and I would argue WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE as well, as she is not well-known outside of tabloid coverage. BonkHindrance (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete Textbook example of WP:NOTINHERITED TheLongTone (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC) This should in no way br marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.225.33 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Fyne (software)[edit]

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

After quick WP:BEFORE I believe this article fails WP:GNG. It is one of programming toolkit, but we are not software catalog, nor StackOverflow. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies but I am confused - there are 73 similar toolkits listed in the Widget_toolkits category. The page describes a project that is contemporary with a number of those grouped articles and is in fact in greater use than a number of them. Ajwillia.ms (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

St. Benilde School[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete with per WP:RS. --BonkHindrance (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Central Election Committee[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG Hemant Dabral^Talk 01:30, 12 February 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 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Merge/redirect into All India Congress Committee assuming that it does factually exist and that no other organizations by that name exist. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Max Korzh[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. --176.15.154.174 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 19:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep as am not familiar with Russian sources of which there are many in the article but there are pointers that he passes several criteria of WP:NMUSIC with extensive touring in Eastern Europe and the USA and that he has won a number of awards from Muz-TV a Russian national music station, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Muscle Champion: Kinnikutō Kessen[edit]

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

does not meet notability criteria to be an article; there are no sources whatsoever N2e (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Has a GameFAQs page here, enough to redirect to List of Konami games. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete The game exists, but redirecting to the list is useless considering it offers no info on the game itself and therefore the redirect fails WP:RFD#DELETE Criteria 10 ("the target article contains virtually no information on the subject"). I was unable to find any significant coverage of the game, let alone multiple, despite searching in the Japanese name as well. Hence it fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Was reviewed by Famitsu (although their preview snippet of the review is corrupted), but I am unable to find any other significant coverage of it - if it exists, it seems likely to be confined to Japanese game magazines from the early 2000s.--Alexandra^IDV 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Update: for the record, the game's subtitle seems to be incorrect? I believe it should be Kinnikujima no Kessen (which Japanese WP agrees with me on). Just in case the article does get merged or the game still is mentioned somewhere.--Alexandra^IDV 17:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Vital Mevengue[edit]

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

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

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

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

Keep I found confirmation very easily, see [4] [5] [6] [7]. Other websites: [8]. There's not a lot of information online, unfortunately, but there's enough to write a properly referenced stub, and I'm sure he would have been written about locally offline. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pouya Bakhtiari[edit]

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

Notability issue or being Notable just for one event Saff V. (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

keep. Hi. What what do you mean by "notability issues"? Secondly, you have mentioned that the article is notable fore an event. It covers all aspects of WP:EVENT and general criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. Covered by third party sources worldwide and the event itself is notable. Gharouni^Talk 14:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep per Gharouni. Also do mind that the nomination is by a user who has been warned by an admin to refrain from IRI pov-pushing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT due to lack of sources covering in detail. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Tamizhaga Janata Party[edit]

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

Political party that fails WP:ORGCRIT Unsourced and cant find any source meeting the criteria. DBig Xrayᗙ 13:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 13:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 13:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

DXAL[edit]

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

A7 declined by Espresso Addict on the basis that radio stations are 'usually considered notable'. This is a view not, as far as I can see, supported by WP:BROADCAST or several other A7s that were accepted [9], [10] nor discussions at AFD. However, anyone has the right to refuse a CSD so here we are I suppose. This, like all the other Philippines radio station stubs, has no sources that do anything except demonstrate bare existence. There is not even a claim to notability, let alone the sources to support such a claim. Fails even the quite low standards of WP:BROADCAST and definitely fails WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 13:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 13:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 13:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

DYAA[edit]

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

A7 declined by Espresso Addict on the basis that radio stations are 'usually considered notable'. This is a view not, as far as I can see, supported by WP:BROADCAST or several other A7s that were accepted [11], [12] nor discussions at AFD. However, anyone has the right to refuse a CSD so here we are I suppose. This, like all the other Philippines radio station stubs, has no sources that do anything except demonstrate bare existence. There is not even a claim to notability, let alone the sources to support such a claim. Fails even the quite low standards of WP:BROADCAST and definitely fails WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 13:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 13:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 13:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sfax Preparatory Engineering Institute[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitcoin Fog[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per WP:GNG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep: This is an example of fraudulent bitcoin behavior that helps to tell the story of how the bitcoin craze developed in its first decade, for good and for ill. It is of historical value to people who want to understand the history of bitcoin exploitation. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Toughpigs: Shouldn't it be merged with Cryptocurrency tumbler, then? BonkHindrance (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect to cryptocurrency tumbler. Where's the WP:SIGCOV? I'm not seeing any. Lots of brief mentions and unreliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ace Cider[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2020 Kabul bombing[edit]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jim Michael^(T) 10:37, 11 February 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 February 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toro (mascot)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Andrew Wilson (actor)[edit]

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

Most of his roles are unnamed bit parts. I doubt that he would have an article if his brothers weren't famous but notability isn't inherited. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 12:59, 19 February 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 procedural close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi V. Melwani is still running. – Joe (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ravi V. Melwani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Vehicle registration plates of Northern Ireland[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Merge No reason for a separate article, unnecessary fork: no due weight concerns or anything, and not an overly large article so that splits become required. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Movebubble[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Vanessa Kensington[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this fictional character passes WP:NFICTION/GNG. AfD 10 year ago was keep due to 'major role'/'google hits'. BEFORE does not show analysis of character that goes beyond one sentence or so ([14]=[15]). The mention in [16] is even more minute. At best, SOFDELETE by redirecting to parent franchise, unless someone can find anything in-depth I missed? But please, check the sources before googlehitting us. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Keep: Clearly notable, per the last AFD. Would we delete Elizabeth Bennet or Elle Woods! I think not! Seriously though, I think the article can be improved and the topic is notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Austin Powers characters#Vanessa Kensington. The article’s information is partly in-universe, and the parts that are not are not actually about the character, but the actress who played her and the film’s rating, those parts can be moved to Elizabeth Hurley. All in all, the article fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Richa Sinha[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Parthesh Patel[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amarpreet Singh Kale[edit]

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

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

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

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

Richard T. Warner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Near (Death Note)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After reviewing, I'd suggest Merge to List of Death Note characters, which can take all of the development stuff (maybe need to take a bit of thinning but not removal) and the brief bit of reception, but should drastically trim the plot stuff. that list is getting a tad long but I don't want to see it lose the development stuff it has on most of the characters. --Masem (t) 20:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

List of members of internet slang classified abbreviations[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Manila (1500)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - I can't find substantial coverage to pass GNG or to support the article's claims. Some of the claims are contradictory with stuff - the Kingdom of Tondo article states that the Lakan Suko figure was leader from 1417–1430 (although without a source). Delete this one as not verifiable. User:Sirfurboy - the 1898 battle's notable too. Hog Farm (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Eric Sparrow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matrix representation of tensors[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Replay to Jasper Deng: you write:

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

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

is "changed" to

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

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

- @Kamil Kielczewski: I still stand by my statements, especially as more reputable sources like [17] universally agree on this expression with the transpose. I taught undergraduate multivariable calculus and have strong understanding of matrix math, and all our textbooks on linear algebra use this convention for bilinear forms. Of course you can left-multiply a square matrix by a row vector of the same length: it’s the same as taking the transpose of the matrix, multiplying by the original column vector, and taking the transpose of the result. A general bilinear form can be given as $\mathbf {x} ^{t}\mathbf {Ay}$ , and the matrix you see as the "metric tensor" serves the role of A here. See first fundamental form for an explicit example. Remember, we're not looking for a row vector per se, but rather, a member of the dual space of the original vector space. The expression obtained by holding y constant here is scalar-valued and linear in x, therefore it is a covector; taking the transpose of $\mathbf {Ay}$ yields the desired row vector representation. If you cannot understand something as basic as this, then you really are in no position to be assessing correctness of content in this field. But that aside, you have an even more fundamental problem. These sources you cited are not reliable, and unjustifiably assume that all tensors operate by simple one-sided matrix multiplication, and somehow that this is the sole matrix representation of a tensor. This is wrong: the metric tensor is a clear example of where both the row and column indices are of the same kind. You also failed to address the vast amount of spelling and grammar mistakes, which I am not going out of my way to fix.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

g_{ij}

,

g^{ij}

or

g_{i}^{j}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete The writing is sub-draft-level, it presents a POV "basic principle" which it then violates for tensors of order >= 3, etc. Even though this article exists to go into specifics, the treatment in Tensor is better. Mgnbar (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete. I see nothing here that would potentially be salvageable by allowing incubation as a draft. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Merge or Delete I agree there isn't much in the way of reliable sources given, a cursory Google Search did turn up [18] an article in International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology but it seems to be locked behind a $50 paywall. In any case, I didn't see any secondary sources. D.Lazard suggested if anything is salvageable here it could be added to the Tensor article and I tend to agree, but, reference issues aside, most of the material seems too WP:TEXTBOOKy for WP. --RDBury (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Tara McGowan[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaurav Gaikwad[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Nothing substantial to support WP:GNG. A Google search returns with few PR and spam articles. Not notable to have a page. The9Man | (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete as yet another article in the spate of fake news blackhat SEO sites trying to inflate the importance of their clients. Not a single one of these sources are reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Margaritaville Resort Orlando[edit]

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

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

Snow keep. I don't understand why this was nominated. The Margaritaville resort is part of Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville chain. It's not a proposed site but a fully operational resort of several hundred acres. You can book a room or read reviews at any number of sites. There are dozens of articles about it. Apparently nom did not even do a basic Google search. Even The Daily Telegraph has a review. [19][20],[21],[22],[23],[24] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Point West Corporate Plaza[edit]

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

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

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

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

2013–14 Township Rollers FC season[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signifyd[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rocky Junction, Arizona[edit]

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

All are road or railroad junctions, not populated places. GNIS failures similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robinson Trail Crossing, Arizona. [25]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Rocky Junction. Trivial mention of the junction in https://newspapers.com with no mention of a population. Post Office not found. Cxbrx (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete Rosemont Junction A USGS paper says that "at present" (whenever that was, either 1933 or 1994?) there was a house at Rosemont Junction and the remains of a poured foundation. The record of 1 or 2 houses does not make for notable, non-trivial coverage. https://newspapers.com has some hits, including a dog lost at the picnic tables at Rosemont Junction. Cxbrx (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ideal Relief Wing Kerala[edit]

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

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

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

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

New England Treatment Access[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Logidots[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete as only one notable source could be found (Economist Rise) which is advertising the company. WikiAviator (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Kapralova society journal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete as no sources support its significance. Fails WP:GNG. WikiAviator (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep – It's reviewed in Notes, Vol. 68, No. 1 (September 2011), JSTOR 23012882; the Open Music Libray lists it, too. Many music departments in universities list it on their resources page. Google Scholar shows ~60 citations. Wikipedia itself cites it at least 16 times. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep. It's a low quality article that reads more like an advert and needs a complete rewrite. I also question why the journal is notable enough for an article but we don't have one for the publishing society itself. I'd prefer to see Kapralova Society, with a section on the journal. Sixty citations on Google Scholar isn't very much at all and I struggle to see it clearly meeting the criteria in the (essay) WP:JOURNALCRIT. However, despite all this it seems to cross the threshold of notability as despite the relatively low number of citations, those citing it are high quality sources themselves (e.g., Journal of Vocational Behavior). QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep, per QuiteUnusual, but Move to Kapralova Society Journal (ie get the caps right - but don't move during AfD). Failing that, Merge to Vítězslava Kaprálová as part of her legacy, but it does seem to have a much wider scope. PamD 09:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Keep per the excellent improvements made by PamD. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to User:PamD. It should be moved to the correct spelling however once the AfD is closed. IphisOfCrete (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Bampumim Teixeira[edit]

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

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

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

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

Keep: A clear case of a notable person, first plays into the mansion homicide type like the 2015 Washington, D.C., quadruple murder incident and the 2018 Colts Neck mansion killings. The case was still ongoing and the perp was acting up and yelling during his trial. Also the case was quite international with sources from BBC to CNN. 11S117 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Strong Delete Per nom, this is clear cut WP:ONEEVENT Sulfurboy (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is not Murderpedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Very Weak Keep per WP:SUSTAINED. BonkHindrance (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Tipton[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per WP:RS. BonkHindrance (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete even after a complete overhaul of the article, I'm seeing nothing but incidental mentions plus the usual statistics from cricketarchive. There is nothing from wider media sources – so fails to meet WP:GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Captain Sim[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - It does get mentioned in one paper, which a WP:BEFORE should have turned up.[27] Nevertheless this is not enough to establish notability. The paper uses it as a comparison, just an example of simulation software. That is about it though, so not notable for its own page. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:NOTCHANGELOG. --BonkHindrance (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ha. A. Mehler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Files[edit]

Files for discussion[edit]

February 19[edit]

File:Sharku 2.jpg[edit]

The image is not accompanied by any critical commentary of the film or of the appearance of the character, so it is just decoration. The fair use requirements for movie screenshots are not met, since no critical commentary of the film or its style are included. Hog Farm (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

February 19[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire chairs[edit]

Propose merging Category:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire chairs to Category:New Hampshire Libertarians

Nominator's rationale: Small category (1 article) that is unlikely to grow. TM 20:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge; the one member article is already in the other parent Category:State political party chairs of New Hampshire. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Blocked historical users[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Blocked historical users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Is there a reason for this to exist when it's always empty and is no longer used Dq209 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, belatedly following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12#Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. I have dealt with the related Wikidata item, merging most interwiki links to Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedians, but a few of the links were for sub-cats for speciic causes (suspected socks/ username violations). – Fayenatic London 22:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Sociology of art[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Sociology of art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, unnecessary category layer with only the main article and a subcategory. I have added the main article in the header of the subcategory in order to keep it all together. There is no need to merge, the main article is already in the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Delete I suppose. The subcat Category:Sociologists of art should certainly be kept, but the weak main article Sociology of art should probably be merged to art history and/or a sociology article. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Walking art[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Walking art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, this is not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep and prune - most contents are biographies that should go to a Category:Walking artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (suitably thinned out). That will leave 8 or so articles (see under L, W etc), which is enough. This is a branch of Land art, as I have just categorized it - it was very poorly set up & populated - I had to add A Line Made by Walking, which ought to have been the most obvious first article to include. It is certainly defining for that & a number of other articles, but very likely not all now in the category. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep, category of art defining for certain pieces. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Kurdistan Region[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Kurdistan Region to Category:Kurdistan Region (Iraq)
Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Iraqi Kurdistan to Category:Buildings and structures in Kurdistan Region (Iraq)
Propose renaming Category:Disestablishments in Iraqi Kurdistan to Category:Disestablishments in Kurdistan Region (Iraq)
Propose renaming Category:Economy of Iraqi Kurdistan to Category:Economy of Kurdistan Region (Iraq)
Propose renaming Category:Establishments in Iraqi Kurdistan to Category:Establishments in Kurdistan Region (Iraq)

Nominator's rationale: rename, adding a disambiguator because Kurdistan stretches among multiple countries while this category is only about the autonomous region in Iraq, and for consistency with the consensus in this earlier discussion. Buildings and structures, disestablishments, economy and establishments categories are usually created for countries and subdivisions, so Kurdistan Region (Iraq) is a more appropriate scope for them than the more loosely defined Iraqi Kurdistan region. Note that I left out the Geography and History categories from this nomination, the history category certainly encompasses more than just the recent autonomous region, and the geography category perhaps as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Here! original productions[edit]

Propose splitting Category:Here! original productions to Category:Here TV original programming and Category:here! Films films

Nominator's rationale: This category incorrectly combines two different entities. One is for programs which aired originally on Here TV, the other are for films which were produced by here! Films.

Regarding the names:

For Here TV see the recent CfD
For the films, see Category:American films by studio which has other similar titles Category:A&M Films films‎, Category:Barwood Films films‎, Category:CBS Films films‎ and others. Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Junior Network shows[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Junior Network shows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not sure what was the reasoning behind the creation of this category. The 4 pages in it never mention "Junior Network" even once in the article and the infobox actually list different networks. Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Dragon (spacecraft)[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Dragon (spacecraft) to Category:SpaceX Dragon

Nominator's rationale: Conforming with the main article SpaceX Dragon. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador[edit]

Propose merging Category:Fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Fauna of Canada
Propose merging Category:Fauna of Newfoundland (island) to Category:Fauna of Canada

Nominator's rationale: The N&L category was deleted in 2007, but then re-created (without any discussion afaics).

Like many fauna-of-place categories this categorizes some articles (e.g. Atlantic herring, Blue ling) by a non-defining characteristic whilst the categories are also so incomplete that they don't work as lists. DexDor^(talk) 12:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial Oppose as creator. I have no particular concern regarding Category:Fauna of Newfoundland and Labrador; I created it but I have a feeling I did so specifically because I wanted it as the parent category for the subcategory for the island, so there's no strong reason to keep this one. I was not aware at the time that I was recreating a deleted category. That said, I oppose deletion/merging of Category:Fauna of Newfoundland (island), on the grounds that it exists specifically because of the genetic distinctions between the various subspecies of mammals on the island and their mainland counterparts (Newfoundland pine marten, Newfoundland black bear, Newfoundland wolf, etc.). While I'm not a biologist, my understanding from these pages and others is that the genetic distinction exists in part due to isolation on the island, and that suggests to me a legitimate reason to have a category specifically tagging these animals as such. (I have no idea who added the various fish to the supercategory, I didn't put them here.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I see two plausible options, each of which I'd be fairly happy with:

merge the N&L category to the Canada one, but keep the island one - Newfoundland is probably large enough and distant enough from the mainland to have its own island ecosystem with separate fauna.
(which might be better) widen the scope of the N&L category to become Fauna of Eastern Canada (or the Maritime Provinces), and merge the island category into that. I note that the Great Plains and Western Canada have their own fauna categories and it's arguable that the Atlantic coast deserves similar categorisation.

Grutness...wha? 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Just for reference, in relation to this, Newfoundland and Labrador is not considered one of the Maritime Provinces.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Viacom Media Networks[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Viacom Media Networks to Category:ViacomCBS television networks

Nominator's rationale: As of December 4, 2019, Viacom Media Networks has renamed to ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks. Ridwan97 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Denny Regrade, Seattle[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Denny Regrade, Seattle to Category:Denny Triangle, Seattle

Nominator's rationale: Matching parent article and WP:COMMONNAME of neighborhood. Sounder Bruce 04:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Dunedin Sound categories[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Dunedin sound to Category:Dunedin Sound
Propose renaming Category:Dunedin sound musicians to Category:Dunedin Sound musicians
Propose renaming Category:Dunedin sound musical groups to Category:Dunedin Sound musical groups
Propose renaming Category:Dunedin sound albums to Category:Dunedin Sound albums
Propose renaming Category:Dunedin sound songs to Category:Dunedin Sound songs

Nominator's rationale: The correct capitalisation of the genre is "Dunedin Sound" - check google, and you'll see that all (or almost all) hits from within the music industry use that form, as do all Dunedin-based sites. If anything, the term "The Dunedin Sound" might be more appropriate, but given that its US sibling, the Paisley Underground simply capitalises both words and foregoes the definite article, that is probably the better form here. Using a lower case form is also confusing - are these sound albums from Dunedin, as opposed to, say, photographic ones? Using a capital for the word Sound also emphasises that Dunedin Sound is the genre, rather than these being musicians and musical works simply from Dunedin (a big overlap, but not all Dunedin Sound musicians are Dunedinites, and vice versa. FWIW, at least a couple of these albums were originally at the capitalised form and moved to the current form using WP:RM/TR, which is supposed to be only for non-controversial moves. Unfortunately, since no template is added to categories which are up for RM/TR (why not?), I didn't find out about it at the time.Grutness...wha? 04:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy rename: This fits the speedy criteria. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- I was hesitant to do that since I renamed the article to the capitalised form myself. Didn't want it to look like I was pushing through an agenda. Grutness...wha? 15:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That is correct, it could not have been speedied under these circumstances. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Support - agree that it should be capitalised throughout. Oculi (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:Lists of fictional works[edit]

Propose deleting Category:Lists of fictional works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT most of the articles in this category were (rightfully) deleted. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Category:Lists of fictional things. The contents are already in the other parent via other routes. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

February 19[edit]

Bickford Park High School[edit]

Bickford Park High School → Palmerston-Little Italy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No high schools are mentioned at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Though not precedent setting, it's worth noting similar redirect discussions for List of schools in Yalova and List of schools in Turkey, both of which closed as "delete" for similar reasons—lack of a mention. So, it's pretty much a case of WP:R#D10, I'd say. Doug Mehus T·C 22:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hindh[edit]

Hindh → Sindh (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

As far as I can tell, this is not an alternative name for the target. At most, it appears to be a romanization of the ancient Iranian term for all of the lands east of the Indus. I would thus suggest deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

IDenfi[edit]

IDenfi → Ident protocol (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target, this redirect was created by an account which has now been blocked for spam. It seems like IDenfi is an example of an Ident protocol, but without any exposition at the target I think that deletion is appropriate here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Blast the pants cannon[edit]

Blast the pants cannon → Flatulence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Blasting the pants cannon → Flatulence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target article, not commonly used [28] [29], not commonly used, no WP:ATT issues with deletion. Hog Farm (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete due, solely, to the lack of usage. I absolutely get what this means from the context, though this is somewhat ambiguous in that it could also refer to crapping one's pants so could be a modest WP:XY thing. The low usage, though, and the full phrasing make this a clear WP:R#D8 fail. Doug Mehus T·C 21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment Thank you to nom Hog Farm for including the pageview statistics. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete The cannon could refer to the penis. No mention in target articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I tend to think that's less likely, but there's at least one and maybe two other possibilities, so deletion is likely best here. Doug Mehus T·C 22:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Airpoop[edit]

Airpoop → Flatulence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target article, has always been a redirect to no attribution issues with deletion, 19 pageviews [30], not a common name for subject. Hog Farm (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete (was ~~Weak delete~~) due to the lack of a mention and low usage per WP:R#D8, without prejudice, of course, to recreation as a soft redirect to Wiktionary if and when an alternative form dictionary entry air poop is added for fart. It's clear to me, from the context of the topic, that "air poop" refers to polluting the air with one's bodily gases. There is no ambiguity here. Doug Mehus T·C 21:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom, not a common neologism. Could refer to bird droppings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

True. Doug Mehus T·C 22:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bark at the moon (Ozzy Osbourne) (Page Redux)[edit]

Draft:Bark at the moon (Ozzy Osbourne) (Page Redux) → Bark at the Moon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete redirect resulting from aborted pagefork attempt by now-blocked editor. Attempt at CSD was declined. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep since its not harming any search results being in the non-indexed "Draft:" namespace, or move to Bark at the Moon (album) without leaving a redirect to preserve the attribution and to leave the edit history at a more helpful and likely search title. (Also, for what it's worth, in response to this edit, WP:RDRAFT would not be an applicable reason to keep this redirect since the redirect is not a {{R from move}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

But the attribution has no value in the reirect; much better to just create the redirect that has the parenthetical, which I have just done. I am proposing deletion because to the "(Page Redux)" parenthtical, which interferes with maintenance of the draftspace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

...I get the attribution concern you are stating. I'm, more or less, stating that the attribution probably should be kept since there are already two editors who have edited the redirect stating that the edit history needs to be retained. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

But the editors aren't saying that. Other than the currently blocked user and bots, Diannaa just added the edit summary for attribution to the main namespace article; she never said this redirect needs to be kept. Cryptic declined speedy deletion, and may or may not have misinterpreted what Diannaa's edit summary had said. Doug Mehus T·C 20:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

One said that there is attribution, and the other declined a CSD due to attribution. The actions speak for themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with UnitedStatesian; this was a duplicate content fork created from and after an existing article. Some administrators will decline speedy deletion requests for G7 or G6; others will approve them. It's a coin flip which administrator you draw. Even Diannaa's edit summary notes that all the attribution history is at the subject Main: namespace article. Doug Mehus T·C 19:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete or Move without leaving a redirect to Main: namespace, as a reasonable compromise to the cited WP:RDRAFT, per above, and per our suprapolicy of WP:COMMONSENSE. Doug Mehus T·C 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- ...Seriously, you might as well just say "per WP:IAR". Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Since this hasn't been done yet ... pinging Cryptic and Diannaa due to their involvement with this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete as housekeeping AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Drought Bowl[edit]

Drought Bowl → Super Bowl LIV (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Most of the internet search results for this phrase are about sporting events other than the Super Bowl. I would thus suggest deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Question Could we possibly move to Drought bowl, leaving a redirect, and disambiguate this? I'm seeing a fair number of "drought bowl" results. Doug Mehus T·C 20:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak retarget to List of NFL franchise post-season droughts since it lists NFL-related droughts, or delete per nom and due to the fact that there is no potential for a disambiguation page at this title unless there is verifiable evidence that this is an alternative title (not an slang term used in WP:OR) for any existing encyclopedic subject on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Steel1943 WP:OR is a guideline that applies to articles, though, no? Disambiguation pages are navigation pages; we have slang terms mentioned on disambiguation pages all the time. Doug Mehus T·C 22:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

...That's just untrue on multiple fronts (considering that "slang" with a good reference is not WP:OR ... and in that case, not really even "slang"), and since I've already had my grievance with your interpretation of WP:OR, I'll just leave it at that. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. You've convinced me. Noting your "weak retarget," I do think deletion is best. There really isn't any targets to disambiguate. Doug Mehus T·C 23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment (was ~~Delete~~) per above. I disagree that WP:OR covers disambiguation pages, but nonetheless, I agree with Steel1943 that we don't have really any targets worth disambiguating. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I'm seeing 'drought bowl' used to refer to the historical U.S. dust bowl and at least two different sporting phenomena. The fact that President Franklin D. Roosevelt himself explicitly labeled the 30s crisis this way does make me wonder. The term has also been mentioned in academic study. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment Based on CoffeeWithMarkets' source, and I concur that I've heard that term used in that context, it's clear we have a primary topic here, and it's not the Super Bowl list. What about retargeting to either Dust Bowl, Drought, or Dust Bowl (disambiguation), where it's mentioned either directly and explicitly or in a clearly synonymous fashion? I'd tend to probably favour the latter. Doug Mehus T·C 00:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Retarget to 107th Grey Cup per actual news article deeming it as such https://ca.news.yahoo.com/drought-bowl-winnipeg-hamilton-look-184446889.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkKjspxiShk . Hatnote to dust bowl. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Oof (or perhaps that's woof? ;-)), another possible target. I can appreciate the desire to keep this redirect, and, despite my being Canadian, I doubt a Grey Cup final would be the primary topic. I honestly think there's too many variables here; we either (a) need to disambiguate, if possible and within the confines of WP:DABMENTION; or (b) delete. Doug Mehus T·C 22:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Rogues' cant,[edit]

Rogues' cant, → Thieves' cant (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect with a comma at the end. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 18:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, as with all other redirects ending with non-substantive punctuation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete, Unnecessary clutter/housekeping. Rogues' cant, without the superfluous comma, exists. Narky Blert (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete because of the comma. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wedian[edit]

Wedian → New administrative capital of Egypt (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete or explain. What is "Wedian"? No mention of it in the article and cannot find it in any of the references there. From the reference on the redirect, it seems to be a project codename. If we're going to keep this redirect, we need something in the target article explaining it. — Smjg (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment This is not something I feel strongly about either way. Anyway, I made the redirect because that was what I was looking up and the search came up empty. The name was quoted in serveral non-wikipedia articles. The Guardian, MIT, Urban Development Consortium. I'm Scandinavian, and the name was also at that time (when the redirect was made) quoted quite extensively in Scandinavian Media (probably from the same source) Bygg.no BT etc etc. Anyway, i'd be fine with deleting the redirect, if it's a problem. Sertmann (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Toxic gases[edit]

Toxic gases → Chemical weapon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Toxic gas → Chemical weapon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Poison gas → Chemical weapon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Poison gases → Chemical weapon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

While chemical warfare is an application of toxic gas, not all toxic gases are used for chemical warfare. List of highly toxic gases could be a viable alternative target, although I'm open to other suggestions as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Redirect toxic gas(es) to List of highly toxic gases. Toxic just means "don't breathe this in", and doesn't imply a use. I've worked with several common industrial chemicals which are in that list.

Retarget poison gas(es) to chemical warfare (for which the broader concept war gas is also a target). Poison does imply an intended use. Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep poison gas and poison gases as redirect to Chemical weapon, a narrower and more specific topic than Chemical warfare (unless we choose to merge Chemical weapon and Chemical warfare). Differently from Toxic gases (which is related to a "neutral" property of those gases), poison gas name implies the aim to kill someone. --Non ci sono più le mezze stagioni (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment I'm not satisfied with the proposed targets identified by Narky Blert. It's still ambiguous. I concur with the nom that change is needed, but don't know what said change is. Doug Mehus T·C 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Retarget - I'd send them all to 'List of highly toxic gases'. The term 'toxic' implies nothing in terms of intent. The vast majority of these chemicals are used for industrial purposes or other activities having nothing to do with warfare. 'Poison' implies a possible intent, however, the term doesn't necessarily mean anything to do with conflict and fighting between human beings. Poison meant to kill weeds is still poison. Same thing for exterminating cockroaches, gnats, mosquitoes, et cetera. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Retarget all to List of highly toxic gases with potential rcat(s) {{R from ambiguous term}} and/or {{R to related topic}} per CoffeeWithMarkets. I am satisfied with his rationale that toxicity of the gases says nothing of intent. Best outcome here, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ordinary People (2018 film)[edit]

Ordinary People (2018 film) → The Villagers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Doesn't appear to be an alternative name or translation for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. The only alternative English-language title I could find was "Bear". Narky Blert (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep. Because this movie title has a tvN Movies version. Please check this link. St3095 ^(?) 08:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I just did, and was redirected to this empty page. Narky Blert (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - The translation might be improper, but then I'm seeing a smattering of websites using this title. Here's one that even has what appears to be an official film icon. However, being not at all familiar with Letterboxd, well, I'm not sure if it has the reputation of supplying false information or not. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@CoffeeWithMarkets: thank you for your comment. St3095 ^(?) 13:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep per @CoffeeWithMarkets and St3095:. Even if it's not the correct name, we can use {{R from incorrect name}}, if it gets users/readers/patrons to the correct name at the article, no? As nom, what do you think, Rosguill? (Pinging you only because you're busy with other things, and may not have had a chance to revisit this thread since nominating.) Doug Mehus T·C 15:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment it looks like Letterboxd sources all of their information to IMDb. IMDb currently lists it only as "The Villagers". If you dig into their release info section, "Ordinary People" is listed as a "South Korean informal English title". I would lean toward not trusting this information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

°С[edit]

°С → Celsius (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The "С" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet making this redirect implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not completely implausible to me that a rusophone might type such a thing, since the °C abbreviation is used in every language. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, the most used Cyrillic keyboard layout has Cyrillic С and Latin C on the same key, making this kind of typo very common. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andrybak: Mixed-script redirects are considered to be implausible; see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes#Mixed-script_redirects. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, last year, this redirect only got 10 pageviews for the whole year which goes to show that it is not a very helpful redirect and the typo is not "very common". Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral (was Keep per above.) Regardless of the alphabet it comes from, it's a reasonable search term, although maybe somewhat less used. It is both harmless and potentially useful. Doug Mehus T·C 15:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: It is not a reasonable search term. You can't type the Cyrillic letter "С" on a QWERTY keyboard which is why it is not used very often. Compare this with °C where the "C" can be typed on the QWERTY keyboard. Redirects like this are generally deleted. I don't understand what is the need to keep this redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, but for clarity, we do already have °C as a redirect, correct? If we do, then I'm officially neutral on this, per the above. Doug Mehus T·C 15:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Yes, °C exists where the "C" is from the QWERTY keyboard so the redirect that uses the "C" on the QWERTY keyboard can be kept. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#Mixed-script redirects and WP:RFFL. Anyone typing in "°С" would almost certainly be better-served by ru:Градус Цельсия (to which °С redirects), or the like in other languages, than by Celsius. Narky Blert (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete This really depends on whether the degree symbol ° is strongly related to Cyrillic font like pi is to Greek, but I don't see that. Perhaps with Roman numerals though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

А1[edit]

А1 → A1 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The "А" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet making this redirect implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Note that a prior RFD for this was closed as "Withdrawn" in 2009. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 29#А1 → A1. TJRC (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

А330[edit]

А330 → Airbus A330 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The "А" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet making this redirect implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how I see the A in the subject redirect makes this redirect implausible. In fact, I'm not certain of any usage outside of the Airbus A330 model aircraft, so I'd be inclined to "keep" it, possibly strong, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Doug Mehus T·C 15:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: The "А" is from the Cyrillic Alphabet. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes#Mixed-script_redirects. A330 already exists where the "A" is not from the Cyrillic alphabet. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough on this one, then. I think you're probably right. Doug Mehus T·C 15:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

2031 Cricket World Cup[edit]

2031 Cricket World Cup → Cricket World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2027 Cricket World Cup → Cricket World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

2030 ICC Men's T20 World Cup → ICC Men's T20 World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

2026 ICC Men's T20 World Cup → ICC Men's T20 World Cup (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL-ball gazing into guesswork of if/when these next tournaments will take place. Nothing has been confirmed by the International Cricket Council. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The proposed 2018 ICC Men's T20 World Cup never took place; there was a jump from 2016 ICC World Twenty20 to 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Exactly the same could happen with future tournaments which no-one has started thinking about organising yet. The 2023 Cricket World Cup looks as if it will take place, but anything after that is pure conjecture. Narky Blert (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Musubi-no-Kami[edit]

Musubi-no-Kami → Yue Lao (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Spurious redirect as described on talk page. Slashme (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

According to User:Eirikr:

The "What links here" feature only shows three incoming links, all from strange indexing pages that appear to be manually curated, but I cannot tell on what basis.

The addition of the content about "Musubi-no-Kami" being a Shinto god of love and matchmaking is bogus, added by a UK anon known for adding spurious Japan-related content. Note the lack of any such page at ja:結びの神, see also ja:むすひ, one of the kami of creation, often conflated with this in pop culture but not in actual Shinto.

I've been dealing with this user for years over on the English Wiktionary. They don't speak or read Japanese, and rely on pop-culture materials as inspiration for their misguided edits. Unsurprisingly, there's lots of stuff in pop culture that doesn't belong in either a dictionary or an encyclopedia.

Seems to me to be almost worth a speedy deletion. --Slashme (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As the creator probably trying to resolve those red links, I have not objection to deletion if they were spurious. —Ost (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Weak retarget to Kotoamatsukami, which talks about the kami musubi https://books.google.com/books?id=6d-RAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA97 But at it stands, going to the assumed marriage deity in a different religion would not make sense. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Two Watchers[edit]

Two Watchers → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Two Watchers" are not mentioned in the English Wikipedia. The article was merged, but the page it was merged into has been redirected, so the content is not around in the articlespace. Hog Farm (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy keep, because this redirect is the result of two pages being merged. Deleting this will cause license/copyright violations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. With no merged content extant, we also no longer need to worry about attribution. In fact, "Two Watchers" isn't mentioned in any Middle-Earth related articles. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Here are the diffs: "merged into Minor places in Middle-earth" and "merged content from Two Watchers". De728631 is still active, if you want to ask him about the merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  - And here's what happened to said content after the merge - [31]. None of this made it to the Middle-earth article. Hog Farm (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    - That doesn't matter. If the content is anywhere in any revision of any article, then the attribution history must be preserved on wiki. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Hyperlink (the sentence about the "disadvantage" to that attribution method). There are no "unless someone later blanks the merged content" or "what if the page gets redirected to a different page?" exceptions to this legal rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep to retain page history per whatamidoing. — Wug·a·po·des 22:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Unless someone's going to write about these statues into the Mordor article, there isn't much to say about it or to keep. The fandom pages can document and preserve such details. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Gilrain[edit]

Gilrain → Middle-earth#Geography (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in a Middle-earth context, the only mentions are in a few random last names appearance (I can't find any articles with the name, so a name page would not be applicable here). Deletion would be recommendable, since the content isn't extant. Hog Farm (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep because this very old (2004!) and harmless redirect is for a place mentioned in previous versions of some Wikipedia articles, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rivers_of_Gondor&oldid=2858499 WP:RFD#HARMFUL tells you to leave old redirects alone unless there is something actively wrong with them. Also, the page views suggest that there are incoming links from somewhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- User:WhatamIdoing, here's the list of pages that link to here. Some userpages and wikipedia space pages, several of which are associated with this listing here. [32]. Hog Farm (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Also, not sure why the fact that it used to be mentioned in articles would be a reason to keep. Hog Farm (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  1. No, that's a link to current versions of pages on Wikipedia that currently link to this page. That's different from (to give just one example) articles that could be linked to it the next time someone hits an Undo button.
  2. Because WP:RFD#HARMFUL has said those are our rules (since 2004 – this is not a new idea). If you haven't read that, then I recommend it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  - I think confusing our readers by redirecting to nonexistent content is harmful. I've owned books before where there were entries in the index that didn't match the pages listed, and that was confusing and frustrating. That's essentially what's going on here. Hog Farm (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    - It isn't "nonexistent content". The redirect tells them that this is a place in Middle Earth, which is a small amount of information. Note that there has never been a rule that says redirects should be deleted if it doesn't happen to be mentioned in the current version of the target article. That's not how Wikipedia works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete because there is something actively wrong with this redirect. Someone searching this is going to want specific information on Gilrain, so it is a disservice to our readers to take them someplace that does not give that information. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If you think that Gilrain should be mentioned in that article, or that a reader of Tolkein's books wouldn't be able to glork the meaning from context, then you should fix the target. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  - I don't see a good place where Gilrain would be mentioned, and I would go as far as saying that I am not sure it would be appropriate to do so anywhere at the target. I'm willing to be swayed though, so if you or someone else has a better idea on how to treat this term, I'm listening. But unless that happens, I default to delete as a confusing and misleading redirect as it stands. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC) edited 15:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete because although this is a plausible surname, we appear to have no bluelinked target articles to disambiguate. We do have to be careful with attribution history with the Middle-earth-related redirects if merges were involved, but there's nothing to keep here for this redirect. Thus, like Tavix says, it's doing our readers/patrons/users a disservice. Doug Mehus T·C 02:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep per RKEEP 4. This is redirect is old enough to drive in the US and last year received 150 page views. Deleting this redirect will break many links. The delete rationales haven't given great reasons as to why this is harmful. Yes, the coverage at the target is not extensive, but as Whatamidoing mentions, deletion is not cleanup. Just because the coverage at the target isn't as great as we want it to be doesn't mean we should delete a 16 year old redirect with significant usage. — Wug·a·po·des 22:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have no opinion on whether Gilrain is a worthy redirect. Had I written the whole Middle-earth coverage from scratch I wouldn't have mentioned this small river, but if it would make people happy I or anyone who feels like it can easily add it to Gondor#Fictional geography, a more specific target than Middle-earth#Geography. We'd say something like "The Gilrain was a small river on the western border of Lebennin." and could cite Return of the King, Book 5, Chapter 9, "The Last Debate". If people would like this then I add it and !vote "retarget". Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Tommy Walker(The Who)[edit]

Tommy Walker(The Who) → Tommy (The Who album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:RDAB. Its properly-spaced version, Tommy Walker (The Who), exists and targets the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Typo with no incoming links and 11 hits all last year. Station1 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Station1 and per nom that the existing redirect, properly spaced, seems to be more used. The lack of a space isn't necessarily a problem, I think, but it's simply unused per WP:R#D8. Doug Mehus T·C 07:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

RAF Group Captain Walker[edit]

RAF Group Captain Walker → Tommy (The Who album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Confusing ... "RAF" isn't mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment The article refers to "Captain Walker" as being in the British army, but that's confusing since "RAF" normally means Royal Air Force. The "Captain Walker" isn't at all a problem, but the "RAF Group" is confusing. I'm leaning towards favouring deletion per WP:R#D2 and/or WP:R#D5. Doug Mehus T·C 07:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above comment. No incoming links and 12 hits all last year. Useless even if it wasn't wrong. Station1 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. The article was wrong, and I've corrected it. In the film and musical, Captain Walker was an RAF bomber pilot with the rank of Group Captain. I found several citations saying so: 1, 2, 3, and most importantly the thoroughly-RS 4 by Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian. Narky Blert (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Retarget (changing !vote) to Tommy (1975 film). I was wrong about the album, but right about the film. Narky Blert (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Retarget to Tommy (1975 film) per Narky Blert, with Rcats {{R from fictional character}}, {{R to related topic}}, and any others. Doug Mehus T·C 14:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Weak retarget to film. This really depends if the film's character is credited as this name or is referred to by this almost full name or whether it should be the full RAF Group Captain Tommy Walker. The film and musical both use Captain Walker as the common name though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

IFreelance / Kolabtree[edit]

IFreelance → List of employment websites (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Kolabtree → List of employment websites (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirects to a list of websites that the titles are not a part of, and neither are mentioned anywhere on the page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom, due to the lack of a mention in the target or, indeed, anywhere on English Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 06:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

February 19[edit]

Template:Infobox Australian road[edit]

Template:Infobox Australian road (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox road (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Australian road into Template:Infobox road.

Previous proposal, in 2014, closed as "discuss further changes after Luafication". However, after more than five years, there appear to have been no steps towards that process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tractor[edit]

Template:Infobox tractor (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:Infobox automobile (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)

Propose merging Template:Infobox tractor with Template:Infobox automobile.
Just 49 transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox automobile}} (which covers buses and trucks also). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

IRB Nations Cup squad navboxes[edit]

Template:2011 Namibia IRB Nations Cup squad (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)
Template:2011 South African Kings IRB Nations Cup squad (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)

We don't need squad navboxes for a minor international tournament, especially when one of the teams involved isn't even a national team (South African Kings), and two of the other teams in the tournament (which don't have navboxes) aren't their nations' senior national teams. – Pee Jay 09:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:South China Tigers squad[edit]

Template:South China Tigers squad (edit · talk · history · links · transclusions · logs · subpages · delete)

Navboxes are supposed to link between different articles, and this one in particular is supposed to link between the different members of the South China Tigers squad; however, there are no such players according to the navbox itself, which means it serves no useful purpose. – Pee Jay 09:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

19 February 2020[edit]

GJ 1151[edit]

Now in the news, so apparently relevant. bender235 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The general rule is that with an AfD that's a year and a half old, and new sources having become available in the meantime, there's nothing to bar anybody from recreating the article, without needing to drag it through DRV. I do suggest you look at WP:NASTCRIT and make sure you satisfy that first. It says you need (point #3), multiple, non-trivial published works. The above article is one. Nobody's quite sure what "multiple" means, but it's usually taken to be two or three, so make sure you've got two and three and you're good to go. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment @Bender235: A couple of quick points in addition to the ones made above by RoySmith. First before opening a Deletion Review it is customary to discuss the matter first with the deleting admin. In this case that would probably have saved a lot of unnecessary trouble as I would have just told you to recreate the article provided that you were satisfied it now passes our notability guidelines. Secondly the only question that is normally addressed at a deletion review for a page deleted as a result of an AfD is whether or not the deleting admin's interpretation of the discussion and consensus was reasonable. In this case I stand by my close. I would gently encourage you to withdraw your request for a review and just go ahead and recreate the article per the advice from RoySmith. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to recreate the article from scratch when it already existed. Why would I do that? --bender235 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse if this is a request to overturn the deletion; either Delete or No Consensus would have been valid closes. As per User:RoySmith, go ahead and either create the article or create the draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Allow recreation- there was nothing wrong with the original close, but this star seems to have become notable later. Reyk _YO! 19:50, 19 February 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	Welcome! 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 Template messages Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wikis Wiki markup
Book Media Category Templates

Wikipedia:XfD today

Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

Articles[edit]

İkinci Ərəbcəbirli[edit]

Birinci Ərəbcəbirli[edit]

Wheeler Place, Arizona[edit]

Tristis[edit]

Suresh Bhatt[edit]

Richard Mounce[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi V. Melwani[edit]

K Money[edit]

Lindsay Wesker[edit]

Ádám Pozsonyi[edit]

Hiralal Chakraborty[edit]

Presscription[edit]

PES Society[edit]

Risa Honma[edit]

Jaber Al Ansari[edit]

Inside the Criminal Mind[edit]

Paraná Banco[edit]

Ravi V. Melwani[edit]

Indrani Mishra[edit]

Digital Journal[edit]

Shahra Razavi[edit]

Serangoon Public Library[edit]

Chowk Shaheedan[edit]

Eerieconsiliation[edit]

Martian Metals[edit]

Autumn Phillips[edit]

Fyne (software)[edit]

St. Benilde School[edit]

Central Election Committee[edit]

Max Korzh[edit]

Muscle Champion: Kinnikutō Kessen[edit]

Vital Mevengue[edit]

Pouya Bakhtiari[edit]

Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front[edit]

Tamizhaga Janata Party[edit]

DXAL[edit]

DYAA[edit]

Sfax Preparatory Engineering Institute[edit]

Bitcoin Fog[edit]

Ace Cider[edit]

2020 Kabul bombing[edit]

Toro (mascot)[edit]

Andrew Wilson (actor)[edit]

Ravi V. Melwani[edit]

Vehicle registration plates of Northern Ireland[edit]

Movebubble[edit]

Vanessa Kensington[edit]

Richa Sinha[edit]

Parthesh Patel[edit]

Amarpreet Singh Kale[edit]

Richard T. Warner[edit]

Near (Death Note)[edit]

List of members of internet slang classified abbreviations[edit]

Battle of Manila (1500)[edit]

Eric Sparrow[edit]

Matrix representation of tensors[edit]

Tara McGowan[edit]

Gaurav Gaikwad[edit]

Margaritaville Resort Orlando[edit]

Point West Corporate Plaza[edit]

2013–14 Township Rollers FC season[edit]

Signifyd[edit]

Rocky Junction, Arizona[edit]

Ideal Relief Wing Kerala[edit]

New England Treatment Access[edit]

Logidots[edit]

Kapralova society journal[edit]

Bampumim Teixeira[edit]

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

Paul Tipton[edit]

Captain Sim[edit]

Ha. A. Mehler[edit]

Files[edit]

Files for discussion[edit]

February 19[edit]

File:Sharku 2.jpg[edit]

Categories[edit]