Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 19: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demo Castellon}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettle Restaurants}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettle Restaurants}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elements (restaurant) (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elements (restaurant) (2nd nomination)}}

Revision as of 07:02, 19 February 2019

< 18 February 20 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Castellon

Demo Castellon (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)

Invalid criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:INVALIDBIO). Claim to notability is through the subject's relationship with Nelly Furtado. Subject is not notable in his own right. UnkleFester (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J947 (c), at 04:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kettle Restaurants

Kettle Restaurants (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)

Unable to find multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 04:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elements (restaurant)

AfDs for this article:
Elements (restaurant) (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)

Does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. Sourcing is provided by routine restaurant reviews. We cannot include every restaurant that gets a review. Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Restaurant reviews are exactly the type of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. If The New York Times thinks a restaurant is worth writing about, the restaurant is probably notable. Most restaurants do not receive the range and number of reviews that Elements has received. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time and time again it is argued that because something has a article in the New York Times, it must be notable. I have yet to see this policy granting auto-notability to anything that can be sourced to the New York Times. The fact is the New York Times regularly covers New Jersey and this falls under WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, we can include every restaurant that is sourced as that's our policy, "Other than verifiability ... there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content." Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the nothing should be deleted argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. If it wasn't for the Forbes article ranking it 35 in the top 100 U.S. restaurants I would be advocating delete as all other references are local (NJ is a local area of the NYT). To be meet WP:GNG, it needs at least one more major non-NY source (e.g. Washington Post, Los Angeles Times), OR to appear in another major top restaurants in America list. I could not find any. If we had an LA equivalent who only appeared in the local LA papers and the LA times (and a Forbes list), would it meet GNG. Maybe not. Remain open-minded. Britishfinance (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case it affects your opinion, I just want to point out that the Forbes source is not written by a staff member or published in a print issue. Forbes.com "contributors" have been judged generally unreliable. Colin M (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Colin, the Forbes article is basically the equivalent of an opinion column. And much more importantly, it is nothing more than a listing, there is no in depth coverage of the restaurant in Forbes.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's an bad point because it appears that the Forbes article hasn't been properly read or understood and so its content is misrepresented. The article in Forbes is not one person's listicle. It's a review of a list published elsewhere and that list was based on a survey of 70,000 places by about 3000 food experts. The exercise covered the entire USA and was organised by Steve Plotnicki who is quite a reputable pundit. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter how many people were polled, its still a list, not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New York city is right next to Jersey, it's still local coverage. The Forbes article is nothing more than a list, it is not in-depth coverage and therefore cannot contribute to notability. --Rusf10 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A city of 8 million people is next to a state of 9 million people, so you consider that local coverage? Dream Focus 11:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having considered this further (re my comments above), this restaurant is a ghost outside of the New York area; the Forbes list is not a recognised list of greatest U.S. restaurants (and it is just Forbes.com which is not Forbes), and Elements is missing in the main U.S-wide lists (e.g. here, here, here, here). In fact, I could not find Elements in any main U.S. top 50 to 100 restaurant list (never mind global top 100 restaurants). Why would WP keep an article on a notable New York restaurant that is unknown outside of the NY area? Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oof. So borderline. Feeling pretty neutral at this point. I do want to push back against the idea that a full review in the New York Times can be written off as "local". It's the newspaper of record for an area with the population of a mid-sized country and has a large readership outside of that area that sources we label "local" in the dismissive sense don't have. It's not a small town paper that reviews everything. It has little short reviews and full reviews, and this one received the latter. The notability that comes with that sort of review is why the most destined-to-be-notable restaurants open there -- because they can increase that notability much more easily there. TL;DR it's not fair, but a NYT review of something just counts for more than a review of something in the Bangor Daily News (sorry, Maine), because it covers a huge population, has to be a lot more selective, and has a wide reach. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For illustration, there are reportedly more than 26,000 restaurants in the NYC.[1] I don't know how many there are in New Jersey, but I suppose 5,000 may be a good guess. I'd say 99% of them won't receive any coverage in secondary sources, and very, very few of them will receive coverage on the level this article currently has. (Which is considerable even if restaurant rankings and reviews are excluded.) By their nature, restaurants are predominantly local businesses - Princeton, New Jersey is hardly a tourist locale - and I don't think coverage on the national level is necessary to establish notability. GregorB (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, wow, that must have been a lack of coffee issue...I would have sworn I checked to see if there were any other NYT article listed! So sorry! valereee (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I still can't believe a single NY Times restaurant review makes this notable.WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources. Would someone please show me what policy says that everything the New York Times covers must be notable? Every other sources presented is indisputably local, so how have we come to the conclusion that the restaurant is notable based on one source alone?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the removal of the NYT article, I this falls to non-notable for me. valereee (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm on the fence, but mainly to counterbalance the particularly poor delete arguments based on (a) the incorrect statement that the NYT article is not about this subject, (b) the idea that major papers in a 20-million-person metropolitan area is "local coverage", and (c) something about it not being on top lists of restaurants, which isn't part of our notability guidelines. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing is adequate to establish notability. The 2010 New York Times piece is clearly about this restaurant: Elements, all glass, stone and metal, offers a range of dishes, at fair prices, like chicken liver pâté; Opened in October 2008 by Stephen Distler and Scott Anderson, the chef, it is a few blocks off the tourist magnet of the Nassau-Witherspoon intersection. The 2013 review is about another restaurant opened by the same pair, and it only gives elements a brief mention, but I don't see why that mention should be excised, either. Following up one business success with another is a reasonable thing to cover in an article about the restaurant business. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2019 (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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoagie Haven

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

Fails notability under WP:ORG. Was previously deleted multiple times. Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The previous AFD was in 2006. The topic appears notable and the current article is extensively sourced including numerous sources later than 2006. It appears to meet wp:GNG. What previous "multiple times" are you referring to? --Doncram (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Playing devil's advocate: the page could be said not to pass WP:AUD because the coverage is all "local". However, WP:AUD is a garbage guideline that should be ignored - according to what it says even companies that have received coverage in Andorran newspapers fulfil WP:AUD but ones given coverage in "local" press of much larger areas do not fulfil WP:AUD. Additionally I see coverage at nj.com which counts as "state-wide" coverage. There might also be said to be WP:PROMO issues with this page, but I think it's as balanced as it can be. Finally I suppose it might be said to be purely WP:MILL or even WP:ROUTINE but I think the fact it's popular with students at Princeton and to some extent appears to be a cultural phenomenon to them just about gets it over the bar on that. EDIT: To state the obvious the 2006 delete decision wasn't based on policy, since the relevant policies barely existed then, and should therefore be ignored for the purposes of this discussion. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like WP:AUD doesn't mean it can just be ignored. If you really think its a "garbage guideline", then purpose that it be changed. Until then, we will follow it.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, we can decide in a AFD or RFC not to apply a particular policy, and this isn't even a policy - it's a guideline. There's a reason why WP:AUD got turned down for general application. FOARP (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really poor argument. See WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. If you actually have a legitimate reason why the guideline should not apply to this article, explain why. But telling me the guideline is garbage or that you can just arbitrarily choose to ignore it is moronic.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making personal attacks. I've stated my reasons for thinking that WP:AUD should not apply - because it is a poor guideline that delivers illogical and inconsistent results (coverage in Andorran media = notable, coverage in London city media = not notable). FOARP (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a personal attack, that's a direct criticism of your argument. If you don't like the guideline, then purpose that it be changed. We have guidelines for a reason, they are not to be ignored.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One paragraph in a book on Princeton does very little to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
but the New York Times has been determined to be an enemy of the state, or similar, I believe, so Wikipedia should probably not consider that a valid source. :( --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2019 (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. Nominator wanted to withdraw the nomination, and the consensus is that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. B. Hawkins

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

It would be incredibly difficult to evaluate the notability of this kind of article (ie, an academic-like person who isn't affiliate with a university) without some assistance. I do notice there's a lot of primary sources in this one, which was the final straw in nomination.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"D. J. B. Hawkins" is fine per WP:COMMONNAME: it's more natural, less cumbersome, the form used on books and the preferred form at several national databases per VIAF and WorldCat. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah that's no problem. I see from your edits you are busy on Wikipedia and you do a lot of good work here. Admittedly I only started the article as a stub more references need to be added. I will add more references later today. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2019 (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. czar 05:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brightech

Brightech (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)

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:25, 19 February 2019 (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PriMedia Inc

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

An unremarkable private business. Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/LibraTech currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I haven't searched yet for sources elsewhere, but, of the sources cited in the article, all but two were either written by one of the company's founders or obituaries for Barry Becher. Of the last two, one of them is behind a paywall and the other mentions neither PriMedia nor its original name, Dial Media (though it does mention the Dial-o-matic—wow, that takes me back). Largoplazo (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Dial Media. There does seem to be significant coverage of this company under its earlier incarnation (Dial Media) which goes beyond what's covered in the Ginsu article. The Barry Belcher obituary reference (from ABC News/WaPo/LA Times) is solid in terms of establishing the company's significance to the history of infomercials, and in talking about products/endeavours other than Ginsu. Another interesting source (not currently cited) is this 1983 NYT piece reporting on Dial Media's involvement with the Democratic Presidential campaign. "Primedia" may technically be a new name for the same company, but it seems to be engaged in a substantially different business activity and its activities since the switch to media buying and rename have not attracted any coverage. The article should be rewritten to reflect a focus on the Dial Media era. Colin M (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2019 (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 Silverbridge, County Armagh. czar 05:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles in Silverbridge

The Troubles in Silverbridge (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)

Seems to be about one event, about which I can find little but run of the mill coverage. SITH (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 03:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:55, 19 February 2019 (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. The consensus is that the article's references are worthy enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roohi Bano

Roohi Bano (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)

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress; notability cannot be derived from relatives. Rms125a@hotmail.com 01:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_February_19&oldid=884056995"