Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 12

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.

Muslim Rashtriya Manch

Muslim Rashtriya Manch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Every sources are routine coverages. The article fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  probably does good work, but we're not a directory nor a soap-box. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This source, for example, is far from "routine coverage". I am concerned about the speed at which this user sends articles for deletion and whether they are actually conducting a
  WP:BEFORE. This is one of the three articles they AfD'd in eight minutes and another user expressed a similar concern on their talk page last month. Dee03 03:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:ORGCRIT to have a separate page. The HT link posted by Dee03 is an interview of the president of this organisation and hence it cannot be used to claim notability. The bar is much higher in ORGCRIT. DBigXrayᗙ 19:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote to merge with Sangh Parivar as its parent organization--DBigXrayᗙ 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might
  dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate. --Soman (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It is pretty clear with sources like [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] that there is evidence of sufficient significant coverage to merit a standalone page. In fact, this organization's petition against Triple talaq in India was signed by over a million Muslims [12] and the entity seems to have received widespread media attention from across the world [13] [14]. Besides, not-for-profit organizations need not meet ORGCRIT. Dee03 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is an opinion piece.

[2] a short article that mentions some of the works of the org.

[3] (posted a second time in this thread) an interview of the president of this organisation and hence it cannot be used to claim notability

[4] acceptable source focussing on the spread of the org in Kashmir

[5] acceptable

[6], [7], [8], [10] are again

WP:ROUTINE

news articles with interview of office holders.

[9] to some extent appears acceptable but it mostly focuses on the interview of the office bearers.

Kautilya3 your link below doesnt work, please fix the link. I think MRM should be merged to RSS or to Sangh Parivar if it survives the AfD--DBigXrayᗙ 08:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going by your comment, this organization breezes past the alternate criteria for non-commercial organizations. Moving on... Dee03 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, as pointed out elsewhere,

WP:ROUTINE only applies to the notability of events, so it should not be used as an argument on notability of individuals and organizations. --Soman (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Dee03, MRM is a Muslim

WP:ROUTINE to be invoked, then please do not use routine coverage of events in the newspapers. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Asking us to evaluate this using BRANCH has become slightly repetitive and redundant at this point, given that BRANCH is being cited incorrectly to begin with. As demonstrated by multiple editors, this organization is notable on its own, unlike recently deleted ones like BJYM Karnataka and BJYM Mumbai, which were indeed examples of BRANCH, i.e., individual chapters of national and international organizations. MRM passes the alternate criteria by satisfying two (NONPROFIT and GNG), if not all three, of the notability requirements outlined there. Dee03 08:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was vacillating till now, but I see that Dee03 has made a pretty persuasive argument. Andersen & Damle's recent book is said to have a detailed coverage of this organisation as well.[15] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The organization has received significant source coverage (including national newspapers) of the largest English-speaking country in the world. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - between the sources and Dee's reasoning, notability seems to be established. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable
  talk) 19:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not only that org fails on notability, it fails on verifiability as well. If it somehow survives AfD, it should be merged into RSS or any of its affiliate articles with some clarifications, pronto (entire string on RSS articles suffers from extreme nationalism bias and POV problems, lacking basic info and context).-౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets
  WP:RSSE or Google News and there is a lot of other coverage, e.g., India Today 2019 [18], Indo-Asian News Service via The New Indian Express 2019 [19], and Newslaundry 2016 (not sure if that one is an RS). I also think this Hindustan Times 2014 article [20] counts as GNG because it is both an interview and also independent reporting in the journalist's own voice. I also think The Washington Post 2019 opinion piece [21] counts for notability even if it's opinion. But even without the HT and WaPo, and take out the routine or otherwise questionable stuff, this is still a GNG keep based on the sourcing out there. Levivich 20:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Leviv I have reviewed the links and I note that all of them are referring it as RSS body,

• RSS backed Muslim Rashtriya Manch on ... (In its title)
• ...some Muslims have joined the RSS, a hardline... (in its opening line)
• RSS wing reaches out to Muslims (in its title)
• This RSS body is a bridge between Muslims and Sangh(in its title)

WP:BRANCH of RSS. Accordingly I have changed my vote from Delete to Merge with Sangh Parivar (also fine with a merge with RSS) as I think we should have the info about this wing of RSS somewhere. Sangh Parivar being the umbrella term for RSS organizations. seems to be the best alternative the other being Rashtriya Swayamsevak SanghDBigXrayᗙ 08:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I’m not surprised that every source discussing MSM also discuss RSS since MSM is part of RSS, but although RSS is mentioned, the articles I linked to are in-depth coverage of MSM, not RSS, and that’s why I think it should be kept (although I see it as a

WP:PAGESIZE issue more than a notability issue, so I’m not terribly opposed to a merge). Levivich (lulz) 23:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:PAGEDECIDE, I would say that it actually suggests to merge since MRM so far has basically been a messenger for the RSS to communicate RSS' policies to the muslim masses. There is no major work that can be discussed in this exclusive article and the reader is better served by reading about MRM as a section in RSS. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Had MRM been notable to merit a separate article, the media would have jumped into discussing MRM exclusively.^[citation needed] As for whether it’s better for the reader for the articles to be merged or not, that’s an editorial decision that should be discussed on the talk page of RSS per our usual merge discussion procedure. This AFD nom is based on the argument that the subject fails GNG and NORG. I think the sources disprove that. So it’s a keep. The fact that it could be merged doesn’t make it not-a-keep. Literally every article that meets GNG could be merged. I don’t really like discussing mergers at AFDs, because watchers of the RSS article may not even be aware of this AFD. So you can argue merge until you’re blue in the face, it won’t change my mind that this article topic meets GNG. That opinion of mine is based on the sourcing, not on arguments about merger, because whether an article should be merged has little to do with whether an article meets GNG, as explained in PAGEDECIDE. Levivich (lulz) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and
  WP:INHERITORG. Relevant informatin should be added to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep this organisation seems to be independently notable, as it has taken part in multiple significant actions that were independently reported on. --Slashme (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 05:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Aviation

Pearl Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication meets

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Pearl Aviation may only have 3 aircraft now, but it has some coverage over its history, and
  notability is not temporary. Pearl Aviation is a subsidiary of the Paspaley company, previously held contracts in the Northern Territory and New South Wales to operate air ambulance services (known as Royal Flying Doctor Service in NSW), and still holds a contract with Airservices Australia as part of a joint venture to survey their aircraft navigation systems across Australia. There appears to have been some coverage of Pearl back in and around 2010 when the NT Government put the air ambulance services out to tender and Pearl lost the contract because of its ageing aircraft and concerns with the company. See articles more generally here by way of example: report on donations to the Liberal Party by Paspaley at the time the contract was tendered, mention of the company in a history of air ambulance services in Australia, radio report on safety concerns raised by Pearl, more on runway safety, ABC article on the cancellation of the contract with Pearl, on the tender process, a mention here on the tender process, coroner report article about a death caused by a delay on a Pearl flight, on its Airservices Australia inspection services, article in 2016 about it downsizing, another one from 2016. I haven't done any searching of its potential history relating to Skywest either - which might have even more coverage. At worst, if the consensus is that there shouldn't be a standalone article, the content (which is sourced - though could be improved by the above) should be merged to the main Paspaley article as part of their operations. Bookscale (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The size of an organistion does not by itself indicate for or against notability. It seems to have more than three aircraft now.

There are also these to consider:

• https://trove.nla.gov.au/article/result?q-field0&q-type0=phrase&q-term0=%22Pearl+Aviation%22&q-field1&q-type1=all&q-term1&q-field2=creator%3A&q-type2=all&q-term2&q-field3=subject%3A&q-type3=all&q-term3&q-year1-date=1964&q-year2-date=2020&q=%22+Pearl+Aviation+%22+date%3A%5B1964+TO+2020%5D
• https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q-field0&q-type0=phrase&q-term0=%22Skywest+Aviation%22&q-field1&q-type1=all&q-term1&q-field2=creator%3A&q-type2=all&q-term2&q-field3=subject%3A&q-type3=all&q-term3&q-year1-date=1964&q-year2-date=1987&q=%22+Skywest+Aviation+%22+date%3A%5B1964+TO+1987%5D

There may be quite sufficient to demonstrate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response As per

HighKing⁺⁺ 20:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Confused There is also
  Skywest Airlines (Australia) in the first sentence of the Pearl Aviation#History redirects to Virgin Australia Regional Airlines. I cannot make head nor tail of these two articles and how they are related or not. There needs to be a thorough review and partial rewrite of both perhaps to properly sort out the relationship or not. Perhaps we should be looking at a merge of both articles? Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - it seems the company that originally ran Pearl Aviation split into two - one took the passenger services (and became Skywest, now Virgin Regional); the other took the other services (e.g. RDFS, navigation system checking services, etc.) and is what is now known as "Pearl Aviation". Having compared the Virgin article and the Pearl one, there seems very little overlap. A bit of a tidy up of the first few sentences in the history section should adequately do the trick. I wouldn't support merging as it would confuse the Virgin article given it is now the subset of a very different company! Bookscale (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge With the Paspaley Company article. Which doesn't even seem to mention it, because it doesn't seem to have notability on its own otherwise. Since all the citations seem to be to the Paspaley companies site or a government one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adamant1: - what about all the other sources I and Aoziwe have found? Have you read the other comments so far? Bookscale (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, With Aoziwe's nla.gov source it seems you need a library account or something somewhere to view any of the articles it lists. So I can't really speak to those. Except that most of the sources seem to be from either Australasian Business Intelligence or Australian Nursing Journal. Both of which seem to have questionable notability. A nursing journal probably isn't reliable because it isn't really related to the industry. Just nurses that happen to fly in planes. So its not authoritative in relation to the subject. Other listed sources seem to be regional, like the North Queensland Register. Regional news outlets aren't good sources from my understanding. With your articles, the first one wouldn't load. The second isn't about the company. There's only a quick mention of it and there isn't real details. The third link says "page not found." So that's a nope. The forth is about The Australian Nursing Federation and not the company. Which is only mentioned twice briefly in the first two sentences. A random death on a plane doesn't seem notable even if there is an article about it. It's borderline sensationalism anyone and doesn't meet neutrality because according to the article "the poor service may have contributed to the death", not clearly caused it. The downsizing articles don't seem important either. Especially not on their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is the third source. I don't agree with your assessment that just because you can't find a source it is worthless. And to suggest a Nursing Journal is not a reliable source about a company that carries out medical aviation services is ridiculous. Bookscale (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what exactly your referencing, but I'll assume its not being able to access the articles in the .gov list. if you can't find or access a source its worthless because you can't add the relevant content from it to the article. You can't just cite a source devoid of qouting it either. Even if the source is about the subject. Both those things are pretty obvious. As far as the nursing journal goes, it doesn't matter if they carry out medical aviation services, it matters if they discuss the company in a substantial way and in the article you cited they didn't. Sorry, but Wikipedia articles aren't bibliographies of every document that might have mentioned a subject in passing. So, I don't really care about nursing journal articles (or any other source) that I can't access, read, or use to add content to an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it's a demonstration that there are sources available - which is adequate for an AfD. Seriously, I really feel like giving up participating in these sometimes, you do all the research to demonstrate notability and yet come across editors who just can't be bothered and nothing is ever good enough. Bookscale (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookscale: Your making it all about you and missing an extremely important point here because of it. One of the options in an AfD is to merge an article if the topic has enough coverage make it a notable subject for Wikipedia but not enough to warrant its own article. Ultimately its about improving the quality of Wikipedia. Not just confirming your opinion about a topic or keep an article when its un-warranted because "I put work into it." So, its about making A determination of notability, not THE determination of notability that I want. If it is merged that doesn't mean your work isn't for nothing. As the citations would still be used. I can understand your frustration though. Its pretty frustrating to take the time to review the sources someone provides just to mongered as a sexist like Aoziwe did to me below. We just have different opinions and that's fine. Don't let it discourage you though. We are all on the same side here. Also, read my quote below from the notability guidelines on having sources and that meaning the topic automatically warrants its own article. Hint, it does't and I don't think the sources do in this case. Again though, that's just my opinion. Your free to disagree. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are demonstrably sources available, and in reliable publications. Just because they are not on line does not mean that they are of no value. Discounting publications with Just nurses that happen to fly in planes I suggest is either blatant sexist bias or gender neutral profession snobbery. Sometimes one needs to actually physically go to a library and read stuff. The sources are sustained and broad. There is quite sufficient
  WP:GNG. The histories of the two subjects need a rewrite to properly explain such, but AfD is not about CLEANUP. Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:NEXIST which you yourself cited "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." So its not just purely about the raw numbers of sources. I said multiple times my main issue was with the lack of enough coverage about the company in the nurses journal. It didn't have anything to do with the profession, let alone the sex of the people in it. If the article was about the topic of medical aviation fine. I would care less since that would mean there would be enough specific details about the actual topic of the article. Which is a company not a profession. As it is though, that's not the case. Your free to disagree, but I did take the time to read through your and Bookscales sources when I could have been doing other things to make an informed opinion. Discounting it as sexist when I was extremely clear about why I made the conclusion that the article should be merged for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with gender, I didn't even mention it, is pretty disgusting. It's also actually sexist IMO to automatically equate nursing with gender. Let alone to use the sexism card if it comes up when sex had literally nothing to do with the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, we are free to agree to disagree. Aoziwe (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah totally. Making baseless claims of sexism, not so much. So hopefully you don't do it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Clearly notable, and it was was formed and started operations in 1964 as Skywest Aviation. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wicked Lifeforms Evolien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

This article fails to establish notability. The main article has a cast list, which honestly should be good enough for a cookie-cutter yearly(?) series like this. I cannot see how this could be considered a justified split. TTN (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  valid thing to search for. ミラP 21:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: There's a lot of information on this page, and the parent Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger has almost no text content. I agree that there's clearly an imbalance and both pages could use strong rewrites, but I don't think deleting this page improves our coverage of the show. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  List of Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger characters. I consider one such list fine, despite NOTPLOT issues. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, or Merge with
  WP:FAN -- there is no notability. Page is mostly filled with plot detail, which shouldn't be on there as the episodes page exists for a reason. lullabying (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Due to the similarity in the issues and the fact that I see a problem with a relist, I've added this article to the AFD. ミラP 22:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abarangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

• Redirect both to
  WP:PLOT and contains no information worth merging, and the other article is the exact same except it has one reference that is a YouTube video. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Toughpigs. — Hunter Kahn 02:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin: The votes make this look like a no consensus, but I've addressed the merge arguments by merging both articles into a draft, so I ask you to redirect both articles without deleting their histories, lest it break the attribution between both articles and said draft mandated by Wikipedia's Creative Commons license. ミラP 02:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable, I support making this draft mainspace and redirecting said articles there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Possibly a notable topic, but not very useful in its current form. The title may be more suited to a disambiguation page. – bradv🍁 05:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idol (pop culture)

Idol (pop culture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Page copies Japanese idol and Korean idol; these articles already exist in respect to their own countries, so this seems like a duplicate article. lullabying (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the recent wave of idol groups in the Asian pop music industry is notable enough for an overview article, and the topic is sufficiently distinct from the American teen idol. The author has also started a few new articles, Chinese idol and Thai idol. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pop culture idol could be anything from religious idols/charms to pop icons, not to mention the Idol (franchise). This might have to be renamed to Idol (Asian pop music) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @AngusWOOF: I understand your argument, but just having an "Idol" dab page is too broad. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have had to remove almost all the content, as it was copied from the source documents, in violation of our copyright policy. Most of the content that remains was copied from Japanese idol— Diannaa (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Duplicate and unnecessary variation of
  YO 😜 12:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The current title is not good, but the phenomenon of manufactured Asian pop music idol groups is not quite the same subject. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Copied from the source documents, in violation of our copyright policy. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Create dab page. We have Japanese idol, Korean idol, Chinese idol, Thai idol, Teen idol, and Matinée idol under this scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe Idol (entertainer) would be a more suitable name? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think creating a DAB page would be more preferable since the history of "idols" is different in each country. However, the current article as is has a lot of copied content. lullabying (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The current article as is would be deleted, and replaced by the DAB. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would also move the (country idol) entries off the Idol (disambiguation) page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Service-Dominant Strategy Canvas

Service-Dominant Strategy Canvas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Someone created this page about a management tool that he himself came up with; only sources are written by himself. PJvanMill (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We
  a free web-host, for new management ideas. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasa Kashiful Huda

Madrasa Kashiful Huda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable islamic school. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no assertion of notability Seasider91 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, This fails
  WP:GNG woefully. No citations seen on the pageQuarterto500 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete =
  run of the mill sectarian institution. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forever (Sleep ∞ Over album)

Forever (Sleep ∞ Over album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'll admit, this article is well sourced, and I would've left it be if the artist had an article, but here's the thing; they don't. We don't normally create articles on releases by recording artists who don't have their own articles, with very few exceptions, such as "Mia Khalifa" (although the artist isn't notable, the song certainly is due to the meme it spawned), various one-off all-star recordings ("We Are the World", "Do They Know It's Hallowe'en?", "Voices That Care", etc.), songs so old no living person knows who originally performed them and various artists releases if those count, and this album obviously falls into none of those categories. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 16:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 16:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 16:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm a bit puzzled by the nom. I'm not sure that no artist article equals no album article. This album seems to have lots of coverage, and meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the nom is alluding to
  WP:A9 probably. But that can be overlooked if the sourcing is there. Usually, it isn’t. But this appears to be a rare case. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - I am not usually in favor of an article for an album by a band that does not have their own article (
  WP:NALBUM. If this album article survives, I could volunteer to get a band article started. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: everyone (including the nominator) seems to agree that this album passes WP:NALBUM on its own terms – the only issue raised is the lack of an article for the artist. But it appears that this could be remedied: there is an AllMusic biography [22], an article in The Guardian [23], and interviews in FACT [24] and Australia's The Music (which looks like it qualifies as an RS) [25] which despite being primary sources could still be used for factual information about the band. It would be short, but there's enough to create a decent and well-sourced article about the band as Doomsdayer520 has suggested, and with that I think any concerns about this album's article would be alleviated. Richard3120 (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above commentary. There appears to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG requirements. I would imagine an article on the band has not been created yet because there has not been enough interested editors to start one. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. The answer isn’t to delete this notable album because of guidelines, but rather create the notable musicians article so it no longer violates that technicality. A rare situation, but it does happen. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW keep per all of the above. The album was heavily reviewed, and Sleep ∞ Over does have an article now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @TenPoundHammer:I don't know why I started this AfD, as just creating an article on the band seemed like an obvious solution from the start. How do I close this AfD?ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 10:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ahmadou Eboa Ngomna

Ahmadou Eboa Ngomna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a professional footballer. Geschichte (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having looked through the players club history his first club appears to be one of Cameroons top clubs and has participated in the African champions league whilst this player was allegedly there. If an African football expert can definitively say whether or not this person has played in the champions league for that club that would be great. Seasider91 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He's never played in a FPL so his ACL games don't count. Ngomna has played for Cameroon in the Coupe de la CEMAC 2008 and African Military Cup Of Nations but I don't know if they are full internationals. There is this interview but it ain't enough for passing GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Article about semi-pro footballer who has achieved notable success in African continental club competitions (captaining the side to the final of the 2008 CAF Champions League). The online coverage is mostly trivial, but there is some non-routine coverage (I've tried to expand the article a bit), and we are hampered by lack of access to offline sources in Cameroon, Iraq and Oman. I suspect this article can squeak by on the GNG but without offline sources it is difficult. Jogurney (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jogurney. GiantSnowman 20:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - available sources barely meet GNG, but as he captained
  2008 CAF Champions League Final and the final of the 2003 CAF Cup, it's hard to think that there wouldn't be ample GNG sources in contemporary media unavailable online. Nfitz (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above. The FCs he played for are all notable. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article per Nfitz. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Barry Bergman

Abby Barry Bergman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I found three reviews, but they only cover one coauthored book. I don't think it's quite enough for
  WP:AUTHOR and there seems to be little else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:NBOOK? TJMSmith (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

If some non-COI editor cares enough about the subject to make an article about the book, sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I can't find anything that would make her or her book pass GNG. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per
  WP:AUTHOR "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." - the work is cited in Teaching Green, The New Teaching Elementary Science, Science Curriculum and The greenhouse-effect experiment (behind a paywall but Google says they cite Jacobson & Bergman Science for Children). I have also added two sources to the article. The book source is more substantial with the NYT source being a trivial mention in the obituary of his co-author. As a side note, the article text says he is male but the article is claimed by Wikiproject Women Writers - I am guessing that someone got a little confused when they saw the name Abby (unless it is the text that is wrong, or the subject has had a change in gender). From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Another trawl looking for sources reveals that his 1998 work was also cited in "No limits to teach(er)" but how?, The Duties, Responsibilities, and Challenges of Opening a New Elementary School and Elementary Principals' Perspectives on Opening New Schools in a Large Urban School District, among others. I am not sure how "wide" the "widely cited by peers" has to be for

WP:AUTHOR but he does get a lot of mentions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Changing to Weak delete. While I think that he barely scrapes over the bar of notability, two exhaustive searches for online sources give little detail, even from trivial mentions. There is so little information that we are probably close to repeating the "about the author" section of his own book. For me this is a case of an article that would be useful to Wikipedia, if we had the reliable sources to take us beyond a list of his works. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, or redirect to article on the book. I also searched for reviews of other books without luck, although likely I was not as careful as David Eppstein. As far as citations, he has two pubs with about 40 citations each, which doesn't convince me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are weak for
  WP:NAUTHOR, even with the identification of additional works. Alansohn (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammad Husaini

Syed Mohammad Husaini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable person. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 13:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article doesn't establish any independent notability of the subject beyond grandiose adjectives. The only reference links to a blank web hosting page, and I'm struggling to find any other sources on this topic. So it meets neither
  WP:V. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. Even, via google search in English I have found nothing about his notability.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per all the above, fails
  WP:V. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This fails
  WP:GNG entirely.Quarterto500 (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does not appear to be notable. Only one source that does not demonstrate notability. "Most prominent" is highly unlikely. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if he could be verified, he was
  run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Eurchuk

Elliot Eurchuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Obviously a tragic case, and it appears that the death and subsequent coroner's report has generated a reasonable amount of press coverage. However, this appears to be one of those special cases of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete nothing here rises above the level of routine news coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Fails
  WP:GNG. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. A minor blip in the news. Or move to Wikinews? Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - horrible, but far too common. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete as lacking notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

)

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

This article fails to establish notability. I don't necessarily agree that the source added de-PROD is really even about this in-universe topic. It's just a single sentence mentioning lycanthropy and vampirism in the context that some fundamentalist people thought playing D&D could lead to satanism and the belief in other such nonsensical extremes: "Other grandiose claims expressed a belief in lycanthropy and vampirism." There's no particular context linking this in-universe item to that real world nonsensical claim. Beyond that, it's a rather minor mention as well. TTN (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As usual, non-notable monstercruft that fails GNG. The picture could probably be used in
  Lycanthrope or something._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. That one cited source is, as stated by the nom, an extremely trivial mention of lycanthropes in D&D, and not significant coverage. It is also the only reliable, secondary source being used, which would not be enough to pass the
  Lycanthrope article is a redirect to Werewolves, which is what the term is actually referring to, where as D&D has always incorrectly used the name to cover all types of "were" creatures. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. DnD cruft, hopefully this year we can de-MonsterManual Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:FANCRUFT Chetsford (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• There are other possible sources out there, so if this is not kept, please either move it to draft, or let me know and I will refund it to draft myself. BD2412 T 23:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Keemo Bankz discography

Keemo Bankz discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per A9, Keemo Bankz doesn't have an article (it's in the draftspace). Hog Farm (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Actelion. Sandstein 09:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CoTherix

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

)

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

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about the company. It only released one product and then went out of business. There's nothing notable or substantial about it online and its had a request for additional citations since 2015 that never got dealt with. Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Actelion. There's a story there. See for example https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/01/29/hypothetical-blockbuster-drug-leads-to-very-real-blockbuster-verdict/#138993559c84 Vexations (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Thanks for suggesting it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per
  unanimous vote. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I agree with merging.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

AdvanSix

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

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

The company does not seem notable for anything. Routers is the only reliable source, but the companies coverage in their article isn't substantial. It seems like the other articles are just about stock prices or financial releases. Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The company was spun off of Honeywell in 2016, according to Forbes. When the Feds dropped an investigation of the company in 2019, Yahoo Finance thought it deserved a full length story. Colin Gerhard (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin Gerhard: I noticed you put the Plastic News citation in the article about them closing the plant in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. So can you also get rid of the reference to it as currently being operational in the second paragraph? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Colin, and that isn't the only news coverage I've managed to find of them. They apparently got an eco-friendly award that was also covered in Yahoo news, among other sources. That's not notable in and of itself, I don't think, but the company is definitely getting independent coverage. The article could certainly use improvement, but I don't see any good reason to delete it altogether. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo "News article" is just a company press release from business wire. In no way is that is independent coverage. You and Colin really should have checked it before citing it. As far as forbes article goes, a company being split is kind of blah. Its not notable IMO because otherwise your making it a notability by association thing. Which isn't how Wikipedia works. Also, the Forbes "article" (more like a blog post. Which they do have) is by a guest author and doesn't represent their views. So that's blah also and again, should have been checked before citing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there's also already established consensus here that Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. Even the company says they don't represent their views. So please check the sources before posting them next time. Otherwise, we just end up keeping a none notable article. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This subject gets thousands of stories on Google news. Here is one in Plastics News: "AdvanSix halts nylon film making in Pennsylvania, cutting 85 jobs." It tells us that, "AdvanSix ranks as one of the world's largest makers of nylon 6. The firm posted sales of just over $1.5 billion in 2018." Check out our

WP:RSP is, you know, a Wikipedia page that anyone can edit. At most, the opinions expressed there are the "consensus" of a discussion that might have involved three or four people. Forbes remains a widely-used source for business information. Contributors can certainly have opinions that do not represent Forbes. But an editor decided that this subject was notable enough to run a story about it. I am not aware of any general rule that says spinoffs are not notable. It obviously depends on the coverage and significance of the spinoff in question. Colin Gerhard (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe, see Google Test. "Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy." I'm sure you'll blow that off though because anyone can edit it. Anyway, how many of those articles in Google News are actually usable? The vast majority are stock price "articles." In other words, complete trash. So maybe there's a few that are usable if you sift through them, but that's not the argument your making anyway. I don't care if there's the possibility there might be reliable sources at some point in the future if we look hard enough for them because Google News give thousands of results. I care if we have them now, and we don't. As far as the Forbes thing goes, it wasn't three or four people. It was 11 discussions involving multiple people every time. Even if it was just 3 or 4 or in each, and it wasn't, that would still be 30 or 40 people. Which is ten times more then decides on if an article gets deleted here. If you think the opinions of 4 or 40 people isn't consensus enough, then I see zero reason your even involved in this. Ultimately I don't care what Forbes editors think, I care what precedence on Wikipedia is and it's clear the precedence is against us using contributors to Forbes as sources. If you have an issue with it, feel free to take it up in the proper channels. This isn't the right place to argue about it though. As it's not on me. Btw, all the information from your Plastic News source is either credited to either an earnings release, "Market sources" (whatever that means), or a blog post. Your really reaching if you think those things are at all reliable. My guess is that most of the Google News results you think we keep the article over are much of the same. Earnings amount and them being a top company in their industry doesn't matter if there's no reliable sources about them. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you no shame? Here is the relevant discussion about Forbes. It was literally three editors who made this decision. Colin Gerhard (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Colin, your only citing one discussion when I said there where 11. Go to the actual article I cited here instead of nick picking a single discussion. See the 11 next to the red circle with the line through it? That's how many discussions there have been about it. If you hover the n in brackets next to the 11 there's links to all the discussions. Which should have been obvious since that's how many discussions I said there were. If you can't be bothered to even check a simple thing like that before you attack someone and are that miss-trusting of what other people tell you, you really shouldn't be doing this. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Nothing speaking to their notability has materialized since the first time the AfD was listed and I doubt anything will. None of the sources provided have been reliable and the person still defending them has resorted to personal attacks instead of looking for more. So, there's zero reason this article should exist IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint made about Forbes contributors on Reliable sources/Noticeboard is that they are mere bloggers. But Joe Cornell edits a subscription newsletter, so I don't think he comes under that umbrella. He seems to be a "spin off specialist" and has written a long list of articles for Forbes on various spin offs. To summarize, here are the stories an AdvanSix artcle could be based on:

• Cornell, Joe, "Digging Into Honeywell's AdvanSix Spinoff," Forbes, Jun 3, 2016.
• "AdvanSix Awarded 2020 Gold Rating for Corporate Social Responsibility From EcoVadis", Associated Press, Jan 30, 2020.
• "Honeywell plans spin-off of resins business with Richmond-area operations," Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 12, 2016. RTD is the local paper for the company's main base of operations.
• "State and federal authorities converge on Hopewell chemical plant as part of undisclosed investigation," Richmond Times-Dispatch
• Esposito, Frank, "AdvanSix helps firefighters in Virginia", Plastics News, May 15, 2019
• "AdvanSix halts nylon film making in Pennsylvania, cutting 85 jobs," Plastics News, May 15, 2019.
• "Nearly 100 People Out of Work as Plant Near Pottsville Closes its Doors", WNEP, May 3, 2019.
• "AdvanSix Expands Operations at Hopewell, Virginia, Plant", Area Development, May 31, 2019. Colin Gerhard (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously going to go through this again? I can't speak to the Richmond articles because they paywalled or something, but Forbes is already out. So get over it. As far as the other two, your AP Press article citation is yet again another company press release from the Business Wire. Whereas, the Plastic News one says "AdvanSix's plant in Hopewell helped purchase two intercom headset systems to improve safety and responses to an emergency. The equipment — valued at $5,000 — will to assist and improve communication for firefighters onboard a fire engine" and that's pretty much it. It should be pretty clear why a plant buying two intercoms for a fire department isn't notable. Neither is them firing people. Every business does that. Or them wining an award (see the corporation notability guidelines). Again, is it that freakin hard to check your citations? At this point it seems like your intentionally trying to pass off bad articles just to get your way. Which is the clearly the reason your unwilling to accept the consensus on the Forbes thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  NYSE
  and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
  
  
  Analyst reports
  
  
  1. This 23 June 2017 article^{Internet Archive} from The Fly notes:

     Cowen analyst Charles Neivert initiated AdvanSix (ASIX) with an Outperform and a $37 price target saying the ultimate earnings power and likely multiple expansion are underappreciated by investors. The analyst said after the spinoff from Honeywell (HON), AdvanSix will be able to optimize resources and expand earnings through product improvement and eventually acquisitions.

  2. This 6 February 2019 article^{Internet Archive} from The Fly notes:

     As reported previously, Cowen analyst Charles Neivert downgraded AdvanSix to Market Perform from Outperform. The analyst said recent subtle changes in industry fundamentals and the macro outlook have made him more cautious. He believes margin pressure will be present throughout most of 2019 based on headwinds from feedstocks, capacity, and a weakening macro versus consensus. Neivert maintained his $33 price target on AdvanSix shares.

  3. This 26 June 2019 article^{Internet Archive} from The Fly notes:

     Stifel analyst Vincent Anderson maintained a Buy rating on AdvanSix after the mayor of Philadelphia confirmed an earlier Reuters report that PES intends to permanently close its refinery following the recent plant explosion and fire. In a research note to investors, Anderson, who believes shares of AdvanSix are weak due to the probability that the refinery will go through with the closure, says he does not expect clarity from management for some time, but thinks his estimates should limit downside risk in shares to $2-$4. He says that while it is likely that the increased cost will drive a negative revision to estimates, he continues to view AdvanSix shares as undervalued and with an improving earnings profile in 2020.

  4. This 10 December 2018 article^{Internet Archive} from The Fly notes:

     Stifel analyst Vincent Anderson initiated AdvanSix with a Buy rating and a price target of $38. The analyst cites the company's position as a low-cost vertically integrated producer of caprolactam with unique asset base. Anderson also notes that AdvanSix is leveraged to a strong North America Ag market through specialty nitrogen fertilizer with a conservative balance sheet.

  https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/ASIX/price-target/?MostRecent=0^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

  Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
  11/19/2019	Cowen	Lower Price Target	Market Perform	$24.00 ➝ $20.00	High	Paywall link
  8/15/2019	CL King	Initiated Coverage	Neutral		Low	Paywall link
  2/6/2019	Cowen	Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Market Perform	$33.00	High	Paywall link
  12/10/2018	Stifel Nicolaus	Initiated Coverage	Buy ➝ Buy	$38.00	High	Paywall link
  11/23/2018	Cowen	Reiterated Rating	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$40.00 ➝ $35.00	Low	Paywall link
  4/12/2018	Cowen	Lower Price Target	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$47.00 ➝ $41.00	Low	Paywall link

  There is sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources to allow AdvanSix to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The analyst reports from
  Stifel Nicolaus are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.

  Cunard (talk

  ) 05:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC

While I have zero issue with analysts reports, because like you said they are usually citable, I would consider an article by one that amounts to a simple statement of "I'm changing my sell rating to a buy" as not meeting the whole "in-depth coverage" standard or the rules about neutrality. WP:NOCORP specifically says the source has to have significant coverage. It can't be trivial or temporary opinion (which don't meet neutral POV). As stock price fluctuations or buy/sell recommendations are and are not neutral. A person writing an article being an "analyst" doesn't circumvent those things. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no requirement for reliable sources to be neutral. Analyst reports never have "a simple statement of 'I'm changing my sell rating to a buy'" because that would not be useful to the investors who purchase and read them to guide their investment decisions. Analyst reports always have in-depth analysis of why an analyst is making a recommendation. For example, The Fly article about the Stifel Nicolaus analysis said, "The analyst cites the company's position as a low-cost vertically integrated producer of caprolactam with unique asset base. Anderson also notes that AdvanSix is leveraged to a strong North America Ag market through specialty nitrogen fertilizer with a conservative balance sheet." This is a two-sentence summary of the analyst's conclusions which are much more in-depth. Here is a sample analyst report of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. from Morningstar. It contains a discussion of the risks the company faces, a financial overview, and a company overview which are all encylopedic information. Analyst reports follow this standard format.

  Cunard (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? Since when does the neutrality of the article or it's author not matter? We can't use articles written by Forbes contributors exactly for that reason and there's a whole list of other none usable just because of their low neutrality. So I have zero clue what your talking about. Things like "the company's position as a low-cost vertically integrated producer of caprolactam with unique asset base" that you cite are essentially just buzzwordy advertisements for the company, and totally not acceptable as encyclopedic content. Know one cares about what their "unique asset base". Let alone how "low-cost vertically integrated" they are, or that they have a "conservative balance sheet." Most people wouldn't even know what those things mean. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise or to say neutrality doesn't matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

All analyst reports are non-neutral sources because their authors advance a viewpoint about the company's performance and support that viewpoint with evidence and analysis. Analyst reports are reliable sources that establish notability because they provide detailed analysis of the company, are independent of the subject, and are published by reputable firms.

This is why Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says about sources that establish notability for public companies: "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

Cunard (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't work for investment firms though. They are't random analysts and the guidelines for companies are much higher then the GNG anyway. Most importantly here is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject", " the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose." https://investors.advansix.com/financial-releases/2019/09-04-2019-133025959 and https://www.cowen.com/capabilities/investment-management/ - COWEN HEALTHCARE INVESTMENTS. So neutrality does matter when your talking about something put out by companies that have something to gain from the company the article is about. They aren't just random, financial analyst's that are working independently on behalf of a news organization. I'd also cite Examples of trivial coverage which includes changes in share or bond prices, quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts, expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, capital transaction, such as raised capital. Which is exactly what the analyst reports you cited cover even if it's put in their own words. I'd also say that an "in-depth analysis of the subject", as you put it, is original research. Although in this case since the companies writing the articles are invested in the company it's more like "just say whatever makes the stock price go up." --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I'd also say that an 'in-depth analysis of the subject', as you put it, is original research.",

Stifel Nicolaus (link).

The analyst reports are independent because a company's "policies must separate research from investment banking with respect to supervision of research analysts, budget determinations and compensation of analysts" and because policies must "mandat[e] separation between research and investment banking, proscrib[e] conduct that could compromise a research analyst's objectivity and requir[e] specific disclosures in research reports and public appearances".

Cunard (talk) 10:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Ironically, the sources given by Adamant1 all clearly demonstrate the company's notability. This should be a keep. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This company has a revenue of $1.4 billion and was formerly part of the
  WP:NCORP. It shouldn't even be here at AFD, so keep right away. This almost looks like a bad-faith attempt at trying to take down a competitor. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hhhmmm, that's a really weird accusation to make and also obviously pretty baseless. If you think the article should be kept, cool. Your free to have your opinion, But maybe leave the attacks of other users out of it next time. Unless you have some actual evidence. That goes for if it's directed at me or anyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Department of Agriculture (Philippines). Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 09:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Agriculture - CALABARZON (Philippines)

Department of Agriculture - CALABARZON (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Unnecessary article/subpage (for a regional office of a department) that is written like a some sort of directory. hueman1 (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article shouldn't be redirected to the article "Department of Agriculture (Philippines)" because it also fails the naming convention. --hueman1 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Department of Agriculture (Philippines). No other region other than CALABARZON has its own page. _SUPER ^ASTIG 13:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Department of Agriculture (Philippines). Ambrosiawater (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Dr. Ring-Ding

Dr. Ring-Ding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Potentially non-notable musician. The most substantial coverage I was able to find is an interview and this blog post. The act is somewhat widely mentioned by name, but depth of coverage seems to be lacking. Many mentions seem to be due to the novelty of a German ska act, and a related argument for notability is made on the article's talk page. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as the article claims that two of his singles (one a co-operation) have charted on one or other of the German national charts which would pass criteria 2 of
  WP:NMUSIC. One of the chartings is referenced to a book on Google books but I can't read it on my ipad. There is also a staff written bio on AllMusic here and they have two staff written reviews of two of his albums, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per
  WP:NEXIST. In addition to the German chart-listing, there's also a lot of coverage in ska/punk fanzines, including an interview in Broke in Korea #17. I know that fanzines aren't necessarily considered RS, but there really are quite a few, which I think speaks to the importance of the band in this particular subculture. I added those links to the article in a "Further reading" section. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable musician who meets
  Skatalites and The Toasters. Dr. Ring Ding also earned acclaim with a cover of the Johnny Cash song Ring of Fire. Ambrosiawater (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. BD2412 T 02:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hotel Cirta

Grand Hotel Cirta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a non-notable hotel with no reason to be included in WP above and beyond thousands of other hotels. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's thousands of non notable hotels but this ain't one of them. A notable colonial building in a major Algerian city. Adequately sourced and appropriate for hotels, hardly advertises it. Should be further coverage in Algerian newspapers in Arabic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Blofeld, can you explain to me what makes it more notable than other hotels? Currently the sources nor the article explain what makes this a notable hotel above any others. Thanks. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dr. Blofield. --Doncram (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardiffbear88 It's notable architecturally [26] , aside from being one of the top hotels of one of the biggest cities in a country. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dr. Blofeld - if you have time could you perhaps integrate some of this information into the article? My French isn’t good enough to extract it from this article accurately. At the moment I don’t feel there’s any notable information about the hotel’s architecture, for example.

The photo in that source from 2018 establishes the architectural significance of the hotel well enough for me. My French language skill is imperfect but I gather from reading the article in French that there is legal dispute about permitting during major renovation of hotel. A Google translation into English of the article is incomplete (drops some sections where pictures or picture captions obscure the main text) for me, but it seems:

• the hotel consists of two buildings built in 1910 and 1923, on 3 hectares (7.4 acres)
• the present owners bought the hotel in 2014(?) and/or began the major rehabilitation in 2014(?) with terms approved by the Algerian national government(?), or by other means an understanding was created, which:

a) involved a 40 million Euro subsidy by the Algerian state for the major rehabilitation and set a scope of work for the project which included closing a portion of road, the "upper part of Rahmani Achour Street to the SIH", whatever the SIH is. The permanent road closure is essential to the project for allowing proper security of the hotel's entranceway. (I suspect they are trying to make it secure to avoid vehicle bombing of the entranceway, as has happened at a number of high end hotels in the Middle East)

b) which the local mayor and government of Constantine are not going along with, refusing to allow the closure of the road, and stating that the access "is critical for the city and especially for the population who live on Rahmani Achour street"

• the rehabilitation combines the two historic buildings, adds swimming pools (plural) and administrative space extensions, yielding a hotel having "54 luxurious rooms, 26 diplomatic suites, and a presidential one".
• The rehabilitation also installed "modern fire safety systems while retaining its Arab-Moorish architectural aspect."
• Completion of the rehab, including achieving security for the entranceway, was required for the hotel to obtain or to keep "Autograph label" which is a certification or branding that I think must be necessary for diplomats or other high-end clients to be willing to stay there [apparently this is Autograph Collection label].

The rehabilitation seemed to be mostly complete, with funds wholly or mostly spent. The contractor(s) were obligated to complete the project by December 31, 2018, but were blocked by the local government's actions.

IMHO the scope of the rehab and the involvement of national government and conflict with the local government make the project and this hotel more significant than it would have been already.

IMHO there must exist local and off-line sources about the hotel in its long history, and there will have been historic coverage of important events/people staying there, as well as coverage of the design/architecture of the buildings.

I am curious what happened, did the hotel get opened; it seems like it would have been resolved by now, in February 2020. Perhaps it did not get opened, or it is not marketed to the general public, because hotel search websites like this one about top Constantine hotels do not cover it.

Hope this partial summary of that article and comments help somewhat. --Doncram (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram Whilst this is useful, we need to find independent secondary sources to prove that there is a consensus that the hotel is architecturally significant. Our interpretation of a photo accompanying a primary source is not sufficient to demonstrate notability.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That dismissal grossly misunderstands my posting. --Doncram (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram the SIH is the hotel investment company. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about another hotel: Constantine is city also known as Cirta. Searching more broadly on "Constantine Algeria hotel architecture" yields this source by Myrtha pools company about their multiple-pools project at Constantine Marriott Hotel (a different, 5-star, peer hotel), and this source by architect of renovations at that hotel, which covers its architecture and amenities and size in text and photos. The architect or contractor was
  List of hotels in Algeria (new redirect). --Doncram (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:AFC for information about how to nominate a topic for a new article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment about commenting in AFDs. I have posted this in another AFD: IMO it gets tedious if an editor comments in response to every single other comment made which does not perfectly agree with the editor's stated position. Maybe it is more tedious if the editor is the deletion nominator. It is also more tedious if the editor does not concede an iota, ever, about any point at all, IMO. Please let a consensus emerge from others' discussion. --Doncram (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram You are welcome to explore my contributions and see for yourself - I don’t make a habit of commenting endlessly on AfDs, trust me. However, I’m afraid your most recent comments have highlighted significant misunderstandings in the AfD process which I thought I was being courteous to alert you to. I don’t really have a strong opinion either way whether the article stays or goes, but I do want the decision to be based on the facts and not bluster. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the hotel and its restoration are the subject of national news 1, 2 and 3. The architecture seems interesting but I’m not sure that it’s so distinctive that it would establish notability on its own. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: First off, the article makes no claim of notability. It says basically that it's a hotel, but nothing about why it's different from any other hotel. And yes, AfD isn't for cleanup, but an article has to make a credible claim of notability. The comment here that it's "one of" the "top" hotels in "one of" the biggest cities is really vague. What does "top" mean? One of how many top hotels? So basically it's a big hotel in the third largest city in Algeria. That doesn't make it notable.