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. Missvain (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollies: Their Twenty Greatest Hits[edit]

The Hollies: Their Twenty Greatest Hits (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)

A non-notable compilation album. Fails WP:NALBUM Vanjagenije (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is not even an assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Fighter Vodka[edit]

Fire Fighter Vodka (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 find no evidence of notability. Posted by user with WP:COI user name. The prize was for an adlabeling and packaging, not for the company per se, and the reference given in connection with the prize has no information about the company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Not finding much in terms of coverage in reliable sources. Mostly just passing mentions in unreliable sources about the design of the container (e.g. www.scoop.it/t/inthedrinknyc/p/2202961245/2012/07/19/fire-fighter-vodka-creative-package-design). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 15 February 2015 (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. Consensus is that GNG is satisfied regardless of whether NMODEL is. ThaddeusB is correct as to why BLP1E doesn't apply here. postdlf (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Bolte[edit]

Audrey Bolte (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 WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E. Other then winning a state title her claim to fame is riding a horse at University. Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

--doncram 22:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete winning state title is not good enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction Different list of winners, different year. I only renommined the first 8 off the closed group AfD to start with. This and others have the same problem but are different. Sure would be easier to deal with these in batches, would save DGG from needing to posting the same incorrect message so many times. Legacypac (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT one of the articles created by one editor said to be a sock/SPA, who created the articles in 8 renominations. This article created by someone else. --doncram 05:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was me thinking you had something better to do .... Clearly not!. –Davey2010^Talk 05:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. None of "votes" above show any evidence of considering Audrey Bolte specifically, besides the nom itself which mentions her horse-riding. Google news search on Audrey Bolte linked above yields a number of hits. Her ditzy answer on some question about women prostitutes as role models was picked up in news coverage, including as far away as this New Zealand article "Top five beauty pageant fails". Infamy = fame, maybe this makes her notable. --doncram 05:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if this article is kept, that quote has to go in it. Awesome! Legacypac (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I have just added a number of references from reliable third-party sources, only some of which reference her Pretty Woman gaffe. (Reading the articles, it seems there's a great explanation: the contestants had just seen the movie as a group. Without giving the incident WP:UNDUE weight, it should make for an informative short paragraph in the article.) The article still needs re-writing (and I'm working on that) but sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG are now present. - Dravecky (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that paragraph would be interesting, if the article is kept. I hope pageant organizers take note, and have the ditzes watch Erin Brockovich (film), say, instead. But, her praising a prostitute as a role model, or being put into a position where she makes such a comment, is not really anything to establish individual article topic notability (not saying you are arguing that). --doncram 21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see the sources establishing notability. Like editor Johnpacklambert argues in similar AFD for Ashleigh Lollie, it is not enough if there is coverage in several local news sources, if the person is just being recognized for one event. The person is not permanently in the news. And, wp:NMODEL is not met. --doncram 21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NMODEL does not override WP:GNG and the WP:NTEMP guideline explicitly states that notability is not temporary and there is no need for ongoing coverage for a person to be notable. - Dravecky (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is wp:GNG, within the general notability guidelines. But, the more specific guidelines on notability for persons has section wp:ONEEVENT, which applies directly: a person mentioned for just one event, should be covered in nn article about the event. I.E., an article about the pageant. It is a mechanical fact that if there is a beauty pageant whose ostensible purpose is to select a winner, there will be a winner. That does not make the winner, who is perhaps randomly chosen, herself notable. Which pageant are we talking about, anyhow? I am not totally opposed to there being a redirect to Miss Universe or to Miss Universe 2014 or whatever is the corresponding pageant. It's a different question, at the pageant article, whether it should bother to mention this person, but that can be left to editors there. --doncram 23:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any one-event concerns are easily overcome by the fact that she's covered for her participation in the Miss Ohio USA pageant and then, many months later, the Miss USA 2012 pageant. That's two notable events, plus coverage for other activities other than the pageants themselves. That a contest results in a winner is just as true of presidential elections, Super Bowls, and the Academy Awards. Notability is not itself a competition so crossing the threshold is sufficient to prove notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not correct. The winner of a presidential election is always notable for many more things then winning. The winner of the Super Bowl is a team obviously notable long before they win the Super Bowl. An Academy Award requires a carrier far greater than winning a single event pageant. A state level pageant is more on par with the state fair rodeo or a tractor pull then winning the White House. Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject has received significant RS coverage by a variety of publications and the article is in good shape. BLP1E does not apply - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not to say we can't have a bio about people known primarily for one thing (which is the vast majority of all notable people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a good list of reliable sources in the article. Wincent77 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2015 (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 Deleted as G12 (copy vio). Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seemi Zaidi[edit]

Seemi Zaidi (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 a unotable actress. The ref is also completely the same as this article. (Granted it is rather short though) Wgolf (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - entire article constitutes WP:COPYVIO or WP:PARAPHRASE. Additionally, Zaidi fails WP:NACTOR. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-Yeah when I looked her up I was going "wow one film!" Wgolf (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - blatant first person advertising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ieeca[edit]

Ieeca (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 claim of notability from reliable sources. However, a fundamental rewrite may make this keepable material. smileguy91^talk 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia isn't the place for spam. Additionally, the article fails WP:ORGDEPTH. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Fleisher[edit]

Brandon Fleisher (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)

WP:BLP of a person with no strong claim to passing Wikipedia's inclusion rules for businesspeople — starting your own business at age 17 is not in and of itself a notability freebie if the business isn't notable enough to get over WP:CORP. Of the article's four sources, #1 is his own website, a primary source that cannot confer notability; #2 is a video clip in which he's the interviewee rather than the subject of the piece, which accordingly does not count toward notability either; and #4 is a straight reprint of #3 in a news aggregator. Which leaves us with one appropriately reliable source (#3), but one source is not enough to get a person over WP:GNG. In addition, with the article having been created by User:Investor101, there's a high probability of conflict of interest here — especially with the creator also uploading a photo of the subject with the credit given as "own work". A very similar version created by User:Financefinance (also suggesting a COI), worded differently and entirely unreferenced but still based on the same weak notability claim, was speedied in October for lacking a serious claim of notability. Since this one at least has an actual reference in it, it's not quite eligible for the same treatment — but it's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be deleted. For the tv thing yes he was the interviewee but he was also the subject. He was also talked about in an article from Ozy recently http://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/fun-futuristic-ways-to-invest/38138 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.48.47 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 99.226.48.47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I suppose that might count for something if Ozy.com counted as a reliable source at all. And an interview never counts toward notability at all — because of the self-promotional aspect, it's valid for additional confirmation of facts after you've adequately covered off the notability issue with enough sources to pass GNG, but it counts for exactly zero toward the meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well then is USA Today a reliable source? http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/01/27/ozy-investment-education-geared-toward-millennials/22402783/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.48.47 (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - surely the Telepgraph source is reliable Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't — but it takes significantly more than one or two sources to claim a WP:GNG pass. If the person hasn't cleanly passed a subject-specific inclusion rule, then there have to be a lot more than just one or two RS to claim notability on "just because media coverage exists" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only reason he's attracted minor press attention is for being a wunderkind doing something otherwise ordinary and non-notable: playing the stock market. Pax 01:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in an AfD discussion I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stinson Hunter, a Keep vote was made with the comment "Well-known enough to be the subject of a recent documentary on national television". Fleisher was the subject of a live prime time television interview so if it applies to that AfD it should apply here too. Gbawden (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a full-fledged half-hour or longer documentary, in which other people are talking about you, and merely being an interview guest, in which you're speaking about yourself, in a segment on a news program. For instance, you don't have to be well-known to be an interview guest on the news — all you have to do is be involved in the topic under discussion in some way. And even in Hunter's case, my read on the situation is that regardless of whether you accept the documentary itself as sufficient notability, the resulting Wikipedia article still isn't reliably sourced enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - More reliable sources have been added since it was originally put on AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.48.47 (talk)
• Delete - There is not enough here to meet notability standards for Wikipedia. The mention in USA Today is just a mention. The "wunderkind" angle is more human interest than solid news. There are probably tens of thousands of individual investors who had, in the short term, doubled their initial investment. Let's check back on this fellow in ten years and see if he's done something significant. LaMona (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The fact that he did this at the age of 17 is what makes it notable. There are many adults that double their money investing and aren't in the news, but Brandon is due to excelling at such a young age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Investor101 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling your money in the stock-market is not difficult; all that is required is insane luck and gigantic balls...or inside knowledge. Keeping your doubled money *is* difficult. (It took him a year? Pbsth. I doubled my money in ten minutes once going all-in on leveraged ETFs pre-open once. -Did I keep it? Noooo....) At any given moment, anyone can look like a genius playing roulette. Pax 01:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the habitually-unsigning IP address 99.226.48.47 (as well as others at the article itself) and the SPA "Investor101" are the same person, I advise fessing up and striking out some commentary and duplicate voting right now, before someone decides a checkuser analysis is warranted on the appropriate sockpuppet noticeboards. Pax 01:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing about Fleisher rises to the level of being truly notable. He is a run of the mill investor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Running a business and investing at 17 sounds notable to me. I see he has been in The Telegraph (Biggest Newspaper in the UK), USA Today (3rd largest newspaper in the USA), and Metro (one of the biggest newspapers in Canada) and also being interviewed about himself on TV. 50.75.232.86 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and should be on Wikipedia IMO but should be written better. I think its suitable for wiki if it gets a major edit or rewrite. 65.124.181.96 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2015 (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 Snaefell Mountain Course. Per WP:ATD, in the future please use normal channels of editing and discussion for proposing or executing mergers. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Bends[edit]

Tower Bends (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 bends in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Snaefell Mountain Course. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pigsonthewing: @Doncram: This appears to be part of the series mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man. Is it, or are there other issues here? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Snaefell Mountain Course. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 15 February 2015 (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. There was no express support shown for the nominator's merging suggestion, which can still be considered through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Milestone[edit]

2nd Milestone (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 road sign. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--doncram 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

• AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
• deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
• RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --doncram 20:37, 1 February 2015 (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, per results of other related AFDs. Nakon 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birkin's Bend[edit]

Birkin's Bend (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 bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--doncram 20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Snaefell Mountain Course. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cajole) @ 15:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The debate about keeping individual very well known places on the Isle of Man TT course and not moving them to the article about Snaefell Mountain Course can be found at deletion discussions for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. agljones (talk)Agljones 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:

• AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
• deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
• RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --doncram 20:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The debate about the contents of the article of Snaefell Mountain Course and the issue of deleting non-notable articles and moving non-trivial information to the same article can be found at deletion discussions for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. The rewritten and restyled Snaefell Mountain Course has been more successful and removing the problems of inaccurate information and plagiarism and the article has been translated into other languages. Moving the non-trivial information would create an over-large and also unreadable article, repeating previous mistakes and some of the non-trivial but not all has already been paraphrased in the Snaefell Mountain Course article. Many of the articles that have been subject to an AFD process can be seen as 'stand-alone' articles and Wikipedia frowns against orphan articles and as another editor observed that these articles about the Snaefell Mountain Course/Isle of Man TT/Manx Grand Prix fit together like pieces in a jigsaw. Wikipedia is an interactive and proactive process and provides encyclopaedic value and as I have previously stated, I am not against either reduction in the number of articles or a rationalisation process. However, Wikipedia does suggest that there are other process to improve articles rather than repeatedly subjected articles to an AFD process when there is no issue of notability or no issue of original research. Other articles have been deleted retrospectively without being subjected to the AFD process. The problems of the same equivalent articles on Wikipedia Nederlands or Wikipedia Deutschland with issues of plagiarism have not been subjected to the same AFD process. (talk)Agljones 17:18, 15 February 2015 (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. There is no policy/guideline-supported consensus that notability is satisfied here. The individual's pageant win does not satisfy subject-specific notability guidelines, and the only sources offered are contemporaneous reports of that win. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Fletcher[edit]

Brooke Fletcher (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)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [1] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation of the user's ban.[2] Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

--doncram 22:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, wp:DENY does apply, right? Or at least you have not disagreed with that. And, the nominator did link to previous nomination, where they argue that the subject does not meet wp:NMODEL. I kinda think the nmodel reasoning could have been explicitly stated here, too, but they did link, and it did save space, and it is valid reasoning, in addition to the wp:DENY reasoning. --doncram 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the Group AfD where there are a bunch of good reasons stated by a bunch of editors over a 10 day period. This article would have been deleted except that the closing admin wanted the names dealt with one by one. So, this article fails all WP inclusion criteria just like all the the sister articles of other contestants in the same Miss USA contest in the same year. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets and passes WP:GNG WordSeventeen (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, what reliable source, if any, do you mean supports this article? For anything going over one event? I note your similar vote rationale at others in this batch, without substantial support provided. --doncram 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stand by my vote here and at any other AFD's. The article passes WP:GNG. There is more than one event, and more than one reference with verifiable reliable sources. I will not be bullied regarding my vote. I have provided substantial support regarding my vote. You are mistaken Doncram. WordSeventeen (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more WP:ROUTINE mentions of the same event does not solve the problem. You have not supported your vote to keep. Legacypac (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WordSeventeen - Stating Keep without providing a source doesn't hold much weight here so thus it may end up being disregarded altogether by the closing admin, No one's bullying you we're simply helping you out...... –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per John Pack Lambert's comment in the similar Ashleigh Lollie AFD (linked above), that this person is not in the news in any permanent way, there is just the one event. I agree, there's no indication this person is in the news for anything more than one event. I don't see substantial coverage in the article, or in the Google News search linked above. It would not suffice if her winning a state-wide crown was reported in several local papers. It won't change if there's local coverage of her appearing at local events, as part of the one-year "reign" as Miss whatever is her title. It's still one event; it's appropriate to draw the line that this level does NOT merit coverage in an encyclopedia. Also she does not meet wp:NMODEL, per the nomination. --doncram 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources already in the article are reliable and sufficient to establish notability, IMO. BLP1E does not apply as it is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news stories, not prevent bios of people know only for one thing (which is the vast majority of notable people). ROUTINE is a section of the event notability guidelines. There is no consensus is applies to people, nor would I consider the coverage here routine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This person has a passing presence that will prevent us from keeping the article up to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per Wikipedia's main Notability guideline, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Insufficient sourcing to pass WP:BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:26, 15 February 2015 (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. No opinion on a proper redirect target. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzy Olsen[edit]

Lizzy Olsen (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)

Nominate for deletion per all the delete arguments in the group nomination [3] because the closing admin requires we do this all again. Content almost 100% contributed by a banned sock in violation if the user's ban.[4] Content may even be machine created. Legacypac (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

--doncram 22:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep because the nominator fails to give a reason for deletion. The nominator only brings up WP:DENY and if the article fails that, then he has no rationale....William 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, at the linked previous AFD, the nom argued that the subject does not meet wp:NMODEL, and notes that NMODEL requires that a person a) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, b) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, or c) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. --doncram 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there's plenty of coverage about different person indie film and Godzilla (2014 film) actress Elizabeth Olsen, younger sister of twins Ashley and Mary-Kate Olsen, who is also known as "Lizzie" or "Lizzy", I can find NO coverage of the AFD subject in Google news search. It is only according to the thepageantnetwork link included in the article that one could have any idea that the subject won Miss Washington DC USA in December 2014. That link shows her pic, clearly different person than the notable actress. Fails to meet wp:NMODEL; has not yet had the "substantial subsequent career" that DGG notes would be necessary. --doncram 15:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss District of Columbia USA with no bias against creating a proper article later if sources emerge. At current, however, there is not enough to support an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment, of redirecting to a state list-article. But here, redirecting this name to actress Elizabeth Olsen would be more justified. The actress appears to be the person more likely sought by a reader searching on "Lizzy Olsen". I stay with my "Delete" vote above. --doncram 22:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for me - use this title as a redirect to the actress. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on WP:BIO grounds and concur with Redirect to Elizabeth Olsen --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 15 February 2015 (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. Defaults to keep. Nakon 02:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Guthrie[edit]

Madison Guthrie (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)

Renominate for deletion per rational and consensus at [5] Doing individual nominations as per User:DGG. Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can someone let me know when this complete and utter flood of AFDs for barely notable (if at all) bikini-wearing trivialities (Take this as a Delete 'em all vote) has gone away so it's safe to follow the Fashion AFD page again? Mabalu (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject is the focus of in depth coverage by reliable third-party sources, including The Tuscaloosa News and AXS TV, and crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds of WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "In depth coverage" from a local paper called Tuscaloosa News [6] that currently lists these routine stories as must reads? "Bibb County scores game's lone basket in 2-0 win over Brookwood-New park in Northport to provide a hidden urban oasis-Girl, 4, dies in house fire in Duncanville-Pulitzer Prize-winner Rick Bragg to speak Feb. 11 at University of Alabama" type and where today's top story is that Girl Scout Cookies just arrived in town [7] the paper does some good work but WP:ROUTINE coverage does not meet the rule that "topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of note or notice; remarkable" WP:BIO Legacypac (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most newspapers carry a wide variety of stories, such as "Shops Prepare for Tie-Ins to ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Film" and "Texas Chili Makes a Welcome Guest" currently on the main page of the online edition of The New York Times. The Tuscaloosa News article is not the mundane coverage that's described by WP:ROUTINE. - Dravecky (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is coverage in a local paper does not establish notability for WP, and those articles don't support WP articles either. WP:ROUTINE specifically says "This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award)" which is exactly what a local person winning a award (crown/title/sash whatever) at a pageant is. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has numerous references to third party reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG as well, the subject has achieved notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient reliable source coverage exists (and is included in the article) to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even her two points of note are not enough. In 50 years we will still have no more recent information than that she is a community college student. We need to limit articles to people who we can keep current information on, and she is not one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may quote WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Routine coverage of a local person winning an award is not 'significant coverage'. An entertainer or WP:NMODEL would be the subject of ongoing coverage - which this subject is not. Legacypac (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're stating opinion. I'm quoting an actual guideline. - Dravecky (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am Quoting WP:ROUTINE. A local person winning an award is the second example given. Your total and repeated misrepresentation of both the guidelines and other user's points is unsettling. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:ROUTINE is a subset of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy which is about events, not people. Madison Guthrie is not an event; she is a person. She is covered by Wikipedia:Notability (people), not the one about events. - Dravecky (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For an Admin your misrepresentation of policy is scary. If I spot you doing this again I will do something about it. The event is ROUTINE and limited notability. If you can't find more then routine coverage of the event including the winner it fails. I believe that all the delete votes on the previous AFD should be considered as that one was closed against concensus on a procedural opinion. There was even a debate about the closure but the Admin insisted on relisting. If the closer does not consider that concensus the people who participated should all be notified so they can participate here. Same goes for the related linked AFDs. 18 editors participated before but far fewer here, and with bad application of policy. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, asI understand it the policy applying the equivalent of ROUTINE to BLP is BLP1E. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopened This AFD was closed by a non-administrator and then re-opened by that person, upon my request, as I felt it didn't meet criteria for wp:NAC(?) non-admin closure. I mention this because I am voting below, after that. --doncram 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, probably to Miss Alabama USA. The two points of note mentioned seem to be her winning Miss Alabama USA and looking "hot" in an ESPN commercial. I tend to think just winning a state contest and being given some automatic coverage should not suffice; it is predictable and not news that someone wins, and it does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia to foolishly provide promotion for a manufactured, temporary persona. The ESPN commercial appearance is insignificant, IMO, but can be mentioned along with other brief details about her in the table of Miss Alabama USA winners, within Miss Alabama USA. A redirect could go to a wp:anchor in her row in the table. --doncram 18:29, 11 February 2015 (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. Defaults to keep. Nakon 02:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Wiser[edit]

Brittany Wiser (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 WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [8] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

--doncram 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does a couple short and WP:ROUTINE articles in the Billings Gazette establish notability? That site's current "hot topics" are Shooting at hospital-Boy Scout theft-Closed restaurants-Mountain lion video-Heights stabbing-Rape charge [9] none of which sound notable enough outside Billings for a Wikipeia article. I did learn she beat 12 other girls to get her crown in Montana. Is that lasting notability? ttacking my credibility with copy paste crap posts is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the integrity of the encyclopedia with a volume of copy-paste nominations hinged on an untruth about the creators of the articles in question is "not cool". Snide comments about the news in Billings are distractions, not arguments based on facts or policy. - Dravecky (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions, not based on facts or policy, were soundly rejected in the Group AfD. You wanted to deal with these one by one, now you call that attacking the integrity of the encyclopedia? That kind of attack is dangerous. The sourcing to a local news site in Billings is truly underwhelming and clearly WP:ROUTINE. Legacypac (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is a subset of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) policy. Which is about events, not people. Brittany Wiser is not an event; she is a person. She is covered by Wikipedia:Notability (people), not the one about events. - Dravecky (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to present you an argument based on facts then, Dravecky. I just looked back over your cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. You made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. You cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith. Would you care to reconsider? Ravenswing 03:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep on an invalid deletion rationale. The subject here has won the Miss Montana contest in 2009 and the Miss Montana USA in 2011, and made appearances on national television in both the Miss America 2010 and Miss USA 2011 national contests, so how anyone could think that BLP1E could possibly apply here defies belief. In the United States, most beauty pageant contestants are not professional models, nor will they ever become professional models, so the WP:NMODEL guideline really isn't applicable at all here. WP:ROUTINE, cited above, applies only to events, not to people. Finally, as noted by Dravecky, above, the accusation that this article was created by a sock is flat-out untrue, and is in total violation of both WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Thanks to the excellent research work done by Dravecky, this article now clearly passes WP:GNG. And, once again, I note that BLP1E does not apply, especially in this case, as there are 4 different, significant events that the subject of this article has been involved in. BLP1E, as it's name suggests, only requires that there be more than one (i.e., two). Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've only nominated 10 8 from the batch of 50 so far. Two others were deleted already based on other's actions. There are thousands on these article created by socks or SPAs. If at a time is too many, how many can we go through at a time again? Ejgreen77 - you can't have it both ways. If they are models they fail model. If they are just high school or university students like you argued elsewhere, they are notable for a single event or at best a couple events. Interestingly they are often referred to by their title, not their name, decreasing their notability. I've also discovered that many state level, and for most countries, county level "winners" are simply appointed by a modeling agency to be Miss Whatever at the pageant. These are private businesses and we could create a Miss Wikipedia World Contest, appoint editors to it to represent places, and select a winner on some arbitrary basis. Legacypac (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Personally I think - A. the nom should've waited a few weeks, and B. nominate some like 5 not 10, All that aside Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Of the three sources in the article, the first is a broken link, the second is a fleeting mention the sum total of which is "Brittany Wiser of Bozeman is the new Miss Montana. Wiser claimed the 60th annual crown Saturday night," and the third not only comes from the same source, but is the only legit source extant, and runs afoul of WP:GEOSCOPE. A Highbeam search for "Brittany Wiser" turns up only a press release, which is explicitly debarred from proving notability. This is an obvious GNG failure. Ravenswing 03:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has several references to verifiable reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG in my view. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You do understand that the GNG requires multiple verifiable, reliable sources, and not just multiple citations? There are only three references in the article. The first is a broken link which cannot be verified. The second two are the same source. Unless there are other sources you would care to post, this is a demonstrable GNG failure. Ravenswing 05:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC

Comment Ravenswing, your comment above is a rather condescending statement. Passes WP:GNG is my vote as above. WordSeventeen (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You need to prove it passes GNG by finding and adding sources here... Your comment pretty much equates to Keep because it's notable and thus is pretty much going to be ignored. –Davey2010^Talk 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It has been explained over and over in this pages discussion that there are numerous references (15 now) that are reliable and verifiable sources. They include several newspapers, a magazine and various other websites that follow pageants and the like. I stand by my vote and statement that this article subject passes WP:GNG and achieves notability easily. I am not worried about your opinion Davey2010 that my vote won't count. My vote is based on guidelines and policies at WP and it will count. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Small point: the 5th one of the current 15 sources doesn't mention Brittany Wiser at all, but rather is used to support another point (the Cole, Erin (July 6, 2010). "An Uphill Climb for Miss Montana" source). I haven't checked them all. --doncram 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have added a number of reliable sources to the article and used them to expand and improve this biography. While some sources are brief mentions included for purposes of verifiability, a sufficient number of them provide the in-depth coverage of the subject required by WP:GNG. I respectfully request that any editor who may have previously !voted to review the article as it now stands and reconsider their evaluation. - Dravecky (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject has received RS coverage by a variety of publications and the article is in good shape. BLP1E does not apply - the guideline is intended to protect private individuals caught up in a news story, not to say we can't have a bio about people known primarily for one thing (which is the vast majority of all notable people). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E applies. This should be included in the article about the event. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why it doesn't apply - a pageant is not a new event that people accidentally get caught up in. The participants are either notable or not on the basis of coverage (i.e. not automatically notable, not automatically non-notable). The guideline is intended to cover things like a natural disaster where someone is in the news as a hero, or a scandal where someone is in the news as a victim, not competitions. Even if it did apply, that would be an argument to merge, not delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-opening: Doncram has asked me to re-open this discussion. Accept my apologies if my closure was inappropriate. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am on the fence about whether this should be kept or deleted/merged/redirected. I tend to think just winning a state contest and being given some automatic coverage should not suffice; it is predictable and not news that someone wins, and it does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia to foolishly provide promotion for a manufactured, temporary persona. Being covered in multiple state/local news stories for what is essentially one event, does not suffice, in my opinion. A winner of just one state tournament should be covered in the article about the state tournament, and their info merged/redirected to there. This subject won 2 separate Montana state tournaments though, and it is not as clean to say the article should be redirected to just one of the Miss Montana and Miss Montana USA articles. I'd be interested to hear specific suggestions about merging/redirecting and where she should be covered, if not in an individual article. --doncram 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope any closing decision can discuss the quality of delete vs. keep vs. merge/redirect arguments, not just plunge for one. I did ask editor Sam Sailor, who did a non-admin close on this AFD, to re-open it, because I think it is not an obvious decision to make, IMO. --doncram 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since she's won 2 titles, I think it establishes notability & makes me feel WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2015 (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. Nakon 02:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Channing Pierce[edit]

Channing Pierce (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 WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [10] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. If she appeared in a movie she was not credited, or even listed as having any role I could find. She got to meet Donald Trump with 50 other girls at once in NY though. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:Masanook who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups this way is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that.

  Examining the article on the actual merits, the sources presented are garbage. Two are blog sites, the third is IMDB and the fourth is the subject's Twitter feed. The second two purportedly support the subject's appearance in a movie, but looking over the IMDB cast list, I agree with the nom that the subject isn't listed, even in the uncredited section, and I'm removing those two sources. A Highbeam search turns up only a single hit in The Arab-American News, the sum total of which is "The Michigan representative for this year's pageant is 24year-old Channing Pierce of Royal Oak." As I'm sure we all know, a one-sentence reference is explicitly debarred by the GNG as supportive of notability. And that's it. I would be very interested where these sources are that Dravecky claims support notability, because even the most casual of glances would alert all but the most inexperienced of users to their flaws. I'm comfortable with calling his Keep vote having been made in bad faith. Ravenswing 03:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Miss Michigan USA with no prejudice against building it into a proper article later. Subject might be notable, but the current referencing does not prove it. That doesn't mean we can't have a paragraph about Pierce at a broader article, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've no objection to a merge to a list on that main article. Ravenswing 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: None of the new sources added strike me as making Pierce "obviously notable". I think merge is probably still the best option, but wouldn't object to a keep. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Dravecky "subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG" WordSeventeen (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• UPDATE: I have thoroughly rewritten this article, incorporating multiple reliable third-party sources (and removing some of the questionable blog sources), pushing it across the WP:GNG thresholds for verifiability and notability. - Dravecky (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lissette Garcia[edit]

Lissette Garcia (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 WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [11] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in September 2010 by User:MissAmericaGirl who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has evently not checked the article. The creators username is a strong clue that they are part of the corporate article building effort, even if this acct was not caught and banned. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, the Miss America and Miss USA organizations are not related. Second, an editor's username doesn't always speak to their origins or motivations. (Or does "Legacypac" represent a conservative political action committee, as the name suggests, not a person?) Third, an article created 4.5 years ago by an uninvolved editor is by definition not part of a "mass creation of articles" by a "sock farm". - Dravecky (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I insist that you withdraw your insinuation that I am related to a PAC formed years AFTER I choose my username. As an Admin you should know better then to throw up such suggestions. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such insinuation as my whole point is that it's ridiculous to attempt to divine motive or identity from a username as you chose to with regards to User:MissAmericaGirl. For the record, I don't think you're a political organization nor is MissAmericaGirl part of "the corporate article building effort" that wasn't "caught and banned" as you accused the user. It's likely an apology is in order but it's to MissAmericaGirl. - Dravecky (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith.

  Examining the article on the actual merits, the sources presented are primary and promotional pageant websites, other than this "firstcoastnews.com" link, which is broken. A Highbeam search for "Lissette Garcia" + Florida turns up nothing, and I'm really interested in hearing from Dravecky what significant coverage in reliable sources he claims to have found. Obvious GNG failure. Ravenswing 04:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Dravecky "subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG." There are a total of seven references in the article across numerous sources. Notability has been achieved. In addition, I have researched numerous of the beauty pageant AFD subjects that this nominator put up in 2-3 minutes apart. I have easily found numerous verifiable reliable sources quite easily for every one I have researched by simply typing the names in google. It really strains my AGF to believe that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE before nominating all these articles for AFD. WordSeventeen (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even with various appearances in barely notable events, she still has had no significant role or coverage. Mentions in the press are not enough to establish GNG, and she fails the objective criteria for entertainers (not just models) etc at WP:NMODEL. You can't prove otherwise, and your opinion is just not enough when all you can find is WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event(s) that just mention her name. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - The first source is pretty good - it's reliable and biographical. The rest are either questionable (for length or reliability) or not-independent, but collectively land me on the side of keep, just barely. An equally acceptable alternative would be to merge the material to Miss Florida USA. Either way, the content should be [[WP:|PRESERVE]]d. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (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. Subject is found to meet the requirements at WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Allen[edit]

Holly Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD<nowinclude>View log</noinclude> · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, sourced only to local paper WP:ROUTINE coverage. Part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [12] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. (Clarify that the sockmaster has been found to encourage subjects to create articles about themselves or have connected people do it. This appears to be created by the article subject herself. ) Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in November 2011 by User:Halen6 who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident this user did not even look at the article and is copy pasting the same attack against me. The group nomination was consensus delete but User:DGG decided to keep based on an opinion about how bundling should be done. Please look at this article on its merits, or complete lack thereof. "Fremont County’s Community News Stream" talking about her speaking at a Rotary meeting does not establish notability, and neither does the home page of corporate promoter sites do much for us. Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for pointing out the creator of Holly Allen is Hallen6 who only edited this article and the related one for the title, including introducing copyvio twice. I can't see any possible self-promotion or corporate promotion going on here, and no possible connection between Holly Allan and Hallen6.

Legacypac (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am quite comfortable with calling this a COI. The three personal shots in the article were all submitted by Hallen6, and one of them -- [[File:Holly_Allen,_2011.jpg]] -- has under Source "My camera," and under Author, "Holly Allen." Ravenswing 04:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As far as Dravecky's heated Keep arguments go, I just looked back at his cut-and-paste Keep votes on these pageant AfDs. He made the first one at 6:43. The second came at 6:50, with six more coming over the next eleven minutes. He cannot possibly claim to have made an adequate search for sources in a time frame like that, and I'm quite comfortable with calling that bad faith.

  Examining the article on the actual merits, I agree with the nom that there are none. There are only two sources listed, the second one being a broken link, and the first one being (a) an obvious press release, which (b) is the sort of ephemeral coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE, and (c) is to county10.com, "Fremont County’s Community News Stream," with no indication as to how it might qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS. In any event, a single source, even if it were a 5,000 word article in the New York Times, does not qualify under the GNG, and I could find no others: "Holly Allen" + Wyoming turned up a goose egg on Highbeam, which is unusual ... you'd think that a name as common as "Holly Allen" would turn up something in a state even as small as Wyoming. I would be happy to hear from Dravecky as to what sources he was referring when he claimed that the subject "meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG." Ravenswing 04:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have researched and added two more verifiable reliable sources to this article. There are now a total of four references including a newspaper, two radio station news sites as well as a news stream site. With references across numerous verifiable and reliable sources this article passes WP:GNG. Also, I have researched numerous of the beauty pageant AFD subjects that this nominator put up in 2-3 minutes apart. I have easily found numerous verifiable reliable sources quite easily for every one I have researched by simply typing the names in google. It really strains my WP:AGF to believe that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE before nominating all these articles for AFD. WordSeventeen (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For my part, I'd like to know where these verifiable, reliable sources which supposedly pass the GNG are. One of the citations you added was a broken link, and I questioned whether you looked at it at all before just cutting-and-pasting it in. The other is (a) a blatant press release of (b) only two paragraphs which (c) doesn't discuss the subject in any detail, let alone the "significant detail" the GNG requires: the only two sentences which mention the subject at all are "Holly Allen of Lander was crowned Miss Wyoming USA®" (yes, closing admin, the trademark symbol was in the press release) and "Holly and Sydney will each receive thousands of dollars in prizes and awards." When added to the broken link already of the four sources in the article?

  I've no objection to trying to source the article; I've big objections to adding junk sources and declaring that the one who didn't do his job here was the nominator. Ravenswing 05:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not add a broken link. It was working when I checked it. In bad faith you Ravenswing said, "I questioned whether you looked at it at all before just cutting-and-pasting it in." That is pure bad faith. I changed the link in the reference - the source website looks to have changed indexing of the stories. The story was there all along. The internet and websites are like that at times. AGF is always better than bad faith. WordSeventeen (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:GNG with multiple citations in reliable, third-party sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject meets WP:GNG per reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - sourcing is probably sufficient to meet the GNG, but given the minimal content a merge to Miss Wyoming USA would be equally viable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentry Miller[edit]

Gentry Miller (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 WP:NMODEL, fails WP:BLP1E, poorly sourced and part of a mass creation of articles on pageant participents by a [13] SOCK farm link and junk building effort. Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:NMODEL that specifies beauty pageant contestants and, in any case, it does not supersede WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary and the subject is covered by reliable third-party sources. Article was created in June 2007 by User:Pageantqueen87 who is neither a sockpuppet nor a junk builder. This nomination, however, is one of a growing series by this nominator in this topic all made about two minutes apart in the wake of a failed mass-nomination. My normal presumption of good faith is strained significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have found numerous references from reliable third-party sources published around the world for this subject and have used them to improve sourcing for this article. - Dravecky (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good you provided some ROUTINE human interest stories and/or press release efforts. How is she notable again? Legacypac (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She won the Miss Kansas Teen USA pageant then six years later won the Miss Kansas USA pageant, both of which garnered national and international recognition. These events are far from what's described in WP:ROUTINE. - Dravecky (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment after I closed the group afd on the basis of likely unequal notability, I advised renominating individually a few at a time; renominating in very large groups the way these are being done is not a good idea, because it defeats the purpose of letting people have time to look for individual sources. (personally, though, I think sufficient sources are likely to be found only when there is a substantial subsequent career). DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Dravecky "subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG." The references for the subject include three local and state newspapers, a television station, plus two international newspapers. As Dravecky has done here, I have researched numerous of the beauty pageant AFD subjects that this nominator put up in 2-3 minutes apart. I have easily found numerous verifiable reliable sources quite easily for every one I have researched by simply typing the names in google. It really strains my AGF to believe that the nominator followed WP:BEFORE before nominating all these batched articles for AFD. WordSeventeen (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Mountenay[edit]

Denise Mountenay (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 biography fails to establish notability. I looked for better sourcing but found nothing. The existing references are WP:PRIMARY sources in which Mountenay is speaking, so they cannot be used to establish notability. What are needed are secondary sources describing Mountenay's life and career in depth. The closest source to that goal is the Twitch Film review. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not seem to meet any notability guideline at this time . -- BenTels (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  15:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has been profiled by The National on CBC - that is a very good indicator of notability in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Author's Comments :Binksternet was very hasty in nominating this article for deletion. I had barely gotten the article posted when he nominated it. It makes me wonder what his motives are for nominating the page since Denise Mountenay most certainly is a noteworthy figure (even half an hour of searching on the Internet demonstrates that). If someone who has been allowed to speak before the United Nations is not a noteworthy person, then I suppose a great many present day people listed in Wikipedia would not be considered noteworthy. I find his knee jerk nomination concerning and discouraging to those desiring to help Wikipedia be a quality resource with information on diverse segments of modern life and society. Is there no process by which people abusing their accounts, to list pages for deletion before they are even fully completed, could be given warnings or something? This is a ridiculous behavior, that calls into question the whole review process of Wikipedia.

As an aside, I have been making several more modifications to the page dedicated to Denise Mountenay adding material and references and refining content. I am relatively new to Wikipedia's authoring process. I had tried authoring on Wikipedia before but was discouraged from trying, due to seeing this kind of slaphappy conduct from reviewers. I have been more persistent, this time around, but once again, feel very discouraged. Please, be aware that I am sincerely trying to do a good job for the sake of all parties. Guidance and assistance is good, ideas on how to improve a page is good, but these punitive tactics are not good. Bushost (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember it's not about you, and it's not about me. The only thing that matters here is that you demonstrate that Mountenay has been profiled in depth in WP:SECONDARY sources, not sources in which she is interviewed or in which she is the author. Check out WP:BIO to see what are your options. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If someone who has been allowed to speak before the United Nations is not a noteworthy person, then I suppose a great many present day people listed in Wikipedia would not be considered noteworthy." Agreed; a great many people listed in Wikipedia should not be because they are not noteworthy. This tu quoque is irrelevant to the present discussion. As Binkster says, this is not about Binkser's biases; I am myself pro-life, but I think he has a point in flagging this article. What are needed are independent secondary sources to establish notability. --Yaush (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added numerous citations to the article, of which the vast majority are to activist Web pages. These won't do as reliable secondary sources to establish notability. The Edmonton Examiner link is better, but you'll need more that the one. --Yaush (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious COI spam. The few reliable sources are exceedingly trivial mentions. I can't verify the claim that "The National" covered her, but in checking, I found that the article appears to be copied at least partly from promotional material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: desperate reference bombardment of trivial mentions, self-published stuff, and other improprieties. It cries out for speedy deletion for blatant promotion. Vrac (talk)

Relist note: Nominally I could have closed this after seven days as delete given the arguments for deletion are far stronger policy-wise, but I felt that given the adversarial nature of the discussion and the quick timeframe that this was nominated, some extra time may be beneficial. If a consensus forms before another seven days is up, I wouldn't hesitate in closing it earlier than 9 Feb. Daniel (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra time[edit]

I have been away from Wikipedia for a bit. I have returned to see that this discussion continues. Denise has been interviewed on Christian TV shows, and is has been quoted and referenced by different pro-life sites around the world, (as is demonstrated by the citings throughout her Wikipedia page) which means that the International pro-life and Christian communities recognize her as a credible speaker and personality. She has been an international speaker at the United Nations and was one of the three speakers in the film Jessica Yu's "Misconception" cited in the wikipedia article, Jessica Yu is a recognized director and writer. The United Nations itself is surely a credible source for indicating who is an international speaker. Also, she has been recognized as an International speaker by the CHP Canada. CHP Canada is a Canadian National Political Party. Along with that, we have ordered a copy of the CBC documentary and it is in the mail, but I am not sure how to cite that information since they don't have it listed on their website. If someone could help me there, I would gladly post the information as soon as I can get it. Also, there are notices of her being a guest speaker at different events including an event at the University of Ottawa. It is clear that you all have disregarded Life Site News as a source, yet they are a go to news source for those who care about the fate of the unborn. I am not sure what other credible sources you want. If you have any suggestions I would appreciate hearing them.Bushost (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.82.18 (talk) [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. Missvain (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selecta (band)[edit]

Selecta (band) (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 fail WP:NBAND. Can't find any coverage. ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete: no indication of importance. ubiquity (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (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. Kurykh (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Crocker[edit]

Caroline Crocker (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)

A biographical article about a living person who is only notable for a single event - trying to teach intelligent design in a science class. While that event was well covered at the time (see Expelled), it gave at best passing notability. Consequently, the bio should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT Guettarda (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There appears to be no change in her WP:BLP1E status since last AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Tabula Rasa1 (talk · contribs) removed the AfD notice. I restored it and warned the user not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with what has already been said. The reports of circumstances from 2005 had attracted attention and then were covered in the film Expelled, released in 2008. I can see that this is therefore covered in the Expelled article. Setting this aside, I cannot see that this educator has met WP:BIO requirements. I can't see that there is justification for a separate biographical article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed per WP:BIO1E. I don't see evidence of independent notability but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails guidelines about one event notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polaroid Kiss[edit]

Polaroid Kiss (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)

While participating in a discussion involving Polaroid Kiss at BLPN I have formed the opinion that the article should be deleted. My reasons are as follows:

1. There is no coverage of the band in Reliable Sources, The references in the article are to 2 blogs [14] [15], the bands Facebook page, their label's discography, and a passing mention in Side-Line Online. The only mention of this band I could find in a maybe Reliable Source is an alblum release article in Side-Line Online. The alblum Weakness of the Beautiful Souls referred to in the article has never been released though the article was published in May 2012. So I do not know how useful that source, even if RS, is to WP:VERIFY their WP:NOTABILITY.I am unsure if Side-Line can be a RS, I am unfamiliar with it or if that even matters considering..
2. Polaroid Kiss fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, Their claim appears to rest on WP:BAND point 6 two or members who are independently notable and they claim several notable members. The problem is there are no sources to back up these claims. The Side-Line Online article, which is the only and closest thing to a RS I could find says there are only two members Brandun Reed and Ian Pickering neither of whom seem particularly notable. All of the notable people are listed at 'guest musician' and 'guest vocalist'. I am not sure if that really matters since the alblum these people are said to be guest artists on has not been released. JBH (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted for the reasons listed by User;Jbhunley. Also, Ian Pickering (of Sneaker Pimps) is not a member of Polaroid Kiss, and therefore point 6 of WP:BAND is not a met, and claims of other notable members and guest artists are sourced via Polaroid Kiss' Facebook posts and Twitter. Demeritus (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Checked the new sources and recent changes made to Polaroid Kiss page. They still consist of passing mentions, Facebook pages and links to purchase music. Nothing supports WP:BAND or WP:GNG/WP:ENT for any of the members. There is not significant (or in fact any) coverage in independant reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. JBH (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (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 Seinfeld. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seinfeld DVD releases[edit]

List of Seinfeld DVD releases (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)

List reads more like an advertisement or directory is does not hold any encyclopedic value. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the main Seinfeld article, but collapse into a more "proper" home media release summary. The details of which episode is on which disc and the extra content tied to each is unnecessary (one can mention in general these episodes sometimes included these extra features), and the list of easter eggs appears as original research. Strip that all out, and you have a nice, concise table to work from. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the vital information already exists at Seinfeld#DVD releases. At the very least, merge some additional details. But this standalone article fails GNG. DVD information does not merit its own article. What about VHS releases? -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Seinfeld. We don't need a whole separate article for this. Just a collapsible section like Masem detailed. A lot of other TV shows use that method in their respective articles. That's all that's needed. Not all this other trivia and unnecessary detail. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2015 (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 Barns of Ayr. Missvain (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Crawford (Scottish knight)[edit]

Ronald Crawford (Scottish knight) (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)

Contested prod, it is not clear that this person is even a historical figure, the article is based on very dated or problematic sources, the Barns of Ayr incident is known to be unhistorical. PatGallacher (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The subject appears in numerous sources. Whether he is historical, mythical, apocryphal or whatever seems quite irrelevant to the question of notability. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are these numerous sources? I'm not strongly opposed to reducing this to a redirect to Barns of Ayr, but as an encyclopedia we have some responsibility to distinguish between historical, legendary and fictional characters. PatGallacher (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's Encyclopædia Britannica, for example. Now, we must ask PatGallacher for his sources. PatGallacher nominated the related article of Barns of Ayr for deletion too and the result of that recent discussion was Keep. PatGallacher then edited that article to push their POV and when this material was challenged, they just edit-warred it back without providing any source. PatGallacher's behaviour is contrary to core policy so they should please see WP:SAUCE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I take the point, although it's difficult to prove a negative. "Freedom's Sword", Peter Traquair's serious account, makes no mention of Ronald Crawford or the Barns of Ayr incident, although it does mention his son briefly. I will consult the Britannica and other works about Wallace and his time. PatGallacher (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Ronald/Reginald, but Pat's on target about about the 'Barns of Ayr' and dated sources in general. I wouldn't consider a century-old article in Encyclopædia Britannica an acceptable source for medieval history, especially considering the amount of good books on Scottish history out there. Felicity Riddy's chapter Unmapping the Territory: Blind Hary's Wallace, in Edward Cowan's The Wallace Book (2007, ISBN 978-0-85976-652-4), is a scholarly discussion on Blind Hary's account of Wallace. She notes the 'Barns of Ayr' a couple times saying "In general, Wallace’s activities were greatly elaborated by Hary, who also inserted additional battles (such as that at Biggar) for his hero to win, or English atrocities (such as the Barns of Ayr episode) for Wallace to revenge." and "Unfortunately – as is commonly pointed out but insufficiently appreciated – none of Hary’s information can be believed without independent corroboration. His technique was to pack his story with authentic-seeming episodes and names that mostly turn out to be anachronistic plagiarisms from Barbour’s, Wyntoun’s and Bower’s narratives of post-Wallace Anglo-Scottish warfare; the purpose was to give the strongest impression of verisimilitude and reliability – but only in the way that including real events and people in modern thrillers does. Hary’s account of Wallace’s kin cannot, therefore, be accepted uncritically, as has happened so often, especially regarding Elderslie; yet nor can it be automatically dismissed. Consider, for instance, Sir Reginald Crawford. He is not mentioned by Gesta Annalia II, Wyntoun or Bower, but occurs in Barbour’s Bruce as being hanged in a barn at Ayr – which gave Hary a famous but fictitious story. Barbour, however, did not call Crawford sheriff of Ayr, so Hary obtained that, correct, detail elsewhere – probably from Crawford’s heirs, the Campbells of Loudon. But does that mean Hary was correct about Crawford’s relationship with Wallace? Perhaps – but equally possibly he invented the relationship to flatter the Campbells." The People of Medieval Scotland: 1093–1314 website lists a couple Crawford sheriffs who appear in contemporary sources. Maybe one of these men could be the historical Ronald in the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that information. I now suggest we merge this article with Barns of Ayr, and attempt to deal with the historicity or otherwise of these matters in that article. Just checked Barbour, he does briefly mention a Crawford hanged in a barn in Ayr, but the context suggests this occurred in 1306. PatGallacher (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The exact quote in a modern translation is "Sir Ranald of Crauford also, and Sir Bryce the Blair, were hanged in a barn at Ayr". Rather a lot has been erected on this slender foundation. This occurs in book 4 in between mentions of the fate of Christopher Seton and the queen and Bruce's daughter Marjorie, implying a 1306 context. PatGallacher (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Barns of Ayr Notability of Crawford seems to be only that he was a purported player in this legendary history. Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, I have come across a recently published book about Robert the Bruce which mentions his supposed son Reginald (a minor but clearly historical figure) being made Sheriff of Ayr in 1296, unlikely if his father was still alive. PatGallacher (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Barns of Ayr Although it would not matter whether he is historical or mythical, it does matter that he is an unknown probable apochcryphal, without adequate sources for almost all of the present content. On the broader matter of deleting the Barns, IMO this would be an infelicitous overstep. If someone has time, some handling of the Felicity Riddy information above would nicely upgrade the Barns article. I ported the reference over to there, and placed it inline at a reasonable spot, but didn't port the quote or a rewording. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Woodbury[edit]

Adam Woodbury (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 run-of-the-mill college basketball player. He's in the news for a recent eye-poking incident, but I don't believe this sufficiently adds to his notability. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The fact that the incident that put him in the news is no where mentions in this article suggests that he is not notable yet. He may be some day, but not now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2015 (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, withdrawn by nominator. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affective_piety[edit]

Affective_piety (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)

Original Research: Hi! I wrote this article all by myself as an experiment, and it has not had any content edited by others. I did not know that it was about to be published, or I would have deleted it before that...because I really (for professional, job search reasons) need to publish it in a peer-review journal. It does contain sections of original opinions and at least one reference to my own scholarly work. Please consider letting me have it back!MAE (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Speedy was declined despite no other significant contributions. I believe those editors erred in disallowing the PROD and speedy. We should let him withdraw this if he wants to. Gigs (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G7. I see no compelling reason not to accede to this request, nor anything about the article history that invalidates a G7 speedy. Or, if for some reason G7 is deemed inadequate, an IAR speedy on the principle of "do no harm" given the nature of the request. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Any amelioratory benefit of deletion earlier in this article's process has been foreclosed on by the passage of time. And on it's merits, I'll agree with the other editors that retention is the only realistic stance remaining. Striking my initial suggestion; it's time (if there ever was one), has passed and we have what we have. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - G7 is a convenience to avoid unnecessary deletion discussions, not a right to withdraw the "irrevocable" CC-BY-SA license. Even if the page is deleted, absolutely anyone can use the text for any purpose if they find it on a mirror site (for example). It is also well within the administrator's right to decline a G7 on a notable topic. I haven't really investigated the article at this time, so I'm not expressing any opinion other than that this should be evaluated on merits not simply the author's request. Pinging the users who were involved at AfC: Tikuko,Hasteur and those who declined deletion: MusikAnimalAndrew Davidson for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  fixing ping: @Tikuko, Hasteur, MusikAnimal, and Andrew Davidson: --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I declined the G7 as there were IPs adding a considerable amount of content. This could easily be the author logged out, but I had no right to assume that. That aside, there's a lot of well-sourced content here. I haven't read into it too much but my gut instinct is that it may be worth keeping. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with MusikAnimal When I reviewewed the submission I saw plenty in it to make it a reasonable promote out of draft space. Page was in draft mode for nearly 6 months (and thereby potentially subject to CSD:G13) but a helpful editor Tikuko noticed it and saw potential so they put it forward for AFC review. Because the template had the original 8-13-2013 "submission date" it shot straight to the top of the Category:AfC_submissions_by_age/Very_old list because it was more than 4 weeks "pending". I reviewed it and there was no reason to not keep it from mainspace. It's been my understanding that CSD:G7 applies if there are no other editors besides the creator who have contributed (even if it's fixing problems), As such CSD:G7 is invalid. Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are all reasonable actions when each is considered in isolation. Thank you providing rationale. Gigs (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The work does not seem especially original as it summarises the work of other scholars who are cited and quoted. The publication of this version here has happened now and cannot be undone. The nominator is free to have this work republished elsewhere but should not attempt to claim back exclusive first publication rights as this would be a serious breach of professional ethics — see Why You Should not Submit Your Work to More than One Journal at a Time — "Editors take this so seriously that they may ban authors from submitting to their journal if they have broken the rules." For further details, see our article about the issue — duplicate publication. Note that, even if this version were to be deleted, this would not necessarily affect all the many services which routinely take copies of Wikipedia articles and store them in their caches and databases. This might include services which specifically look for work being plagiarised from Wikipedia and so you really don't want to go there. This discussion is now a matter of public record and, the more fuss that is made, the more likely that the Streisand effect will grow. It would be more prudent to accept that publication has happened and make a virtue of it. Perhaps it might be put forward as a featured article, for example — a rare distinction which is a significant accolade here. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It would have been one thing if this was a page that only recently got started, but this page is nearly a few years old and even showed up on the stale AFC work (CSD:G13) page so at this time entertaining a "I was working on a draft" is not really valid. I don't really see any other reasons to delete this as the author released the contributions under the CC licence irrevocably the subject is very well cited and referenced, and is probably well on it's way to being a "Good Article" or "Featured Article". Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since I didn't actually do a bolded vote before. Yes, the CC license is not automatically revocable. Yes, the author erred by starting a draft here if he intended to submit it to journals. But we need to consider the facts here:
  • He didn't submit this for AfC evaluation, someone else did that on his behalf.
  • He may not have realized that prior publication would be an obstacle to journal submission.
  • He may not have realized that drafts here are considered contributions that we can just take upon ourselves to publish, even without him submitting it for AfC evaluation.
  • I believe it's safe to assume the IP editor was just the main contributor, not signed in.
  • The topic is one of very niche interest, as can be seen by its orphan status. The phrase "affective piety" only occurs in one other article on the whole encyclopedia, piety.
  • Notability is only well established because of the author's careful research and work. It is ironic that his own careful work would be used against him.
  • Had he not forgotten to log in a few times, it would clearly qualify for speedy deletion.
  • We don't need to "punish" this guy to make a point about open content licenses. It's not going to set a precedent or anything, it's an unusual situation. There is no general right to withdraw content, and this won't create one.
  • Maybe the biggest thing by far: This editor is clearly capable of writing high quality content on Wikipedia. Driving him off by being inflexible on this request would be a huge mistake. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Unfortunately, in terms of journal submission, it's too late. StAnselm (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, hard to put the cat back into the bag. If the author can accept that this deletion won't really help him because of mirrors, then maybe we can end this on more amicable terms than a "forced keep". Gigs (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC) BTW if mm2cat is female forgive my pronouns of convenience Gigs (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mm2cat: As others have pointed out, the work is already "out there" and deleting the page isn't going to change that. Most of the mirror sites do not delete pages just because Wikipedia does, and indeed there are several that ONLY host material deleted by Wikipedia. If you submit this to a journal, and they do a web search, they are going to know it was previously published on Wikipedia regardless of what happens in this discussion. In light of that, would you like to withdraw this request or proceed anyway? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By our usual standards, this is a well written and remarkably clear summary of an important topic, with approbate references to excellent sources, and no indication of being impermissible SYNTHESIS -- rather, suitably encyclopedic summary. The author intend to submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, and though this is not one of my special fields where i would be qualified to act a a reviewer, I see no reason why it would not be published. Having been published in Wikipedia is not incompatible with that. I suppose the authors problems is that given our free licensing, fewer journals are likely to accept it. But our licensing is irrevocable, and the author cannot have been unaware of it. Since it has already been released as free content, it will remain free content whether it is removed here or not. As Gigs and StAnselm correctly point out, there is nothing that can be done to change this. In my experience, the best way around this is to either find a journals whig will accept it despite the licensing, or to write an alternative but similar article and refer to this as a preliminary working version. Most publishers will accept this, as long as they can asset t copyright on the new version (even though all they might early have is copyright over the changes). DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks to all of you for this careful and illuminating discussion. But special thanks to the person who pointed out that I might not be a man--which I am not--tant pis! ;) I can see that I need to withdraw the request for deletion. Giving the article "Special" status would be great! And I can start spending some time making links from relevant pages back to this article--which I can keep improving! MAE (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If someone posted this to WP without the author's consent that is a breach of copyright. If the author has himself posted it on WP, he has no one but himself to blame for shooting himself in the foot, hindering his wish to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, for few journals will accept work that has already been published elsewhere. I suspect that even a rewrite would be accepted, since the ideas would already have eben published. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ewhurst Cricket Club[edit]

Ewhurst Cricket Club (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, local sports team Deunanknute (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket#CRIN, "Clubs, teams and venues": the club plays in the Surrey County League, and doesn't compete at a sufficiently high level. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons mentioned above. I live just a couple of miles away from Ewhurst, and their cricket club is just a typical village club. JH (talk page) 18:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. At the very least this club would have to be in the premier league of the Surrey Championship to be notable. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pongthep Pumsiri[edit]

Pongthep Pumsiri (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 WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Nothing is verifiable in the article. Kingjeff (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thirawat Lertpitchapatch[edit]

Thirawat Lertpitchapatch (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 WP:GNG, Unsourced BLP JMHamo (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2015 (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. I'm seeing a consensus that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. Since several redirect targets have been suggested, a discussion of whether "Divided soveregnty" should be re-created as a redirect (and, if so, what the target should be) can be conducted elsewhere. Deor (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divided Sovereignty[edit]

Divided Sovereignty (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)

Hopelessly WP:OR ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an opinion piece. As User: BD2412 notes the subject is already covered under Federalism in the United States. Red Harvest (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 19:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep While the article is a little essay-like and unbalanced right now, it's not original research. I think we could have a distinct article on this concept, which is a political theory concept that is somewhat distinct from the actual chronicles of the history of federalism in the United States. Not opposed to chopping large parts of the existing article back to a stub if that's what it takes though. Gigs (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This would best be served re-pointing to Federalism i the United States, where perhaps a stub of this material could be incorporated. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV pushing, violates an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines. Brimba (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. unnecessary OR. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Federalism. Article is unusable, but term seems to be used in other sources as a type of Federalism. Empire3131 (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REdirect to Federalism, which is the target implied by the title. The content in fact only relates to one country (USA), so that if there is anything worth merging (which I doubt), the target woudl be the USA article. However, the article has the feel of an undergraduate essay. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The articles on Federalism and States Rights fail to gather into one place the Constitution's Framers reasons for wording the Preamble with provide versus promote, 9th and 10th Amendments. In 1982 the Federal providing welfare via a communications monopoly was declared unconstitutional. Federal violation of divided sovereignty (see President Madison's Mar 3, 1817 veto) by taxing to provide welfare via energy and transportation infrastructure monopolies resulted in the current problems of pollution tilting the balance of nature with Climate Change, resource depletion with US Peak Oil in 1970, 50% dependence of the US economy of foreign oil, oil-wars since 1990, and funding of terrorists with oil-dollars. The lack of use of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution to defend individual liberty indicates the lack of importance placed on divided sovereignty. The use of the Tenth Amendment to suppress individual liberty via "States Right's" indicates the perversion of divided sovereignty. Nullification by the states was a failed attempt to enforce divided sovereignty. BillJamesMN (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Determining framers' intent is the judiciary's job, not wikipedias. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And BillJamesMN is also inserting his original research into other articles. The sooner this is deleted, the better. Red Harvest (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteRedir to Federalism Phrase does not appear in the constitution, but this article is premised on Lead Sentence 1's false assertion that it is defined in that document. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dual federalism. Closing administrator, I think that this article thematically more closely corresponds to the existing article on "dual federalism", rather than "federalism". "Dual federalism" is far from perfect, but it has a workable outline, prose rather than marching quotes, and some reasonable citations. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and redirect probably to Federalism, but that can be discussed subsequently. The present article is a string of long quotations assembled to make an essay, and neither overall nor in detail adds anything to Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 17 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disposable energy[edit]

Disposable energy (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)

Hopelessly WP:OR. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Contains original research and no evidence of concept ever being applied. Snabbkaffe (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – OR, primary sources, no evidence of "disposable energy" in this sense being used anywhere except in other articles by the same author. On the plus side, easy to understand, great graphics. But Wikipedia is not the place for this. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- OR, quotes his own article for definition. Uses primary sources to create a narrative. Red Harvest (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting hypothesis, but WP is not the place to publish it. Gigs (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia:Complete bollocks.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Brimba (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, piling on the WP:SNOW --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The metric of GDP failed to warn of the Sept 2008 economic crash. This metric is used currently to justify building solar-powered mobility networks by JPods, ET3 and others. By deleting this you deprive users access via this wiki to a prime metric used for retooling to sustainable infrastructure and solving the pollution driving climate change. BillJamesMN (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I line up behind Bill in the delete column, even if that input wasn't his intention. Cool graphics. Dubious data. Unsourced. Actually everyone already knows this, Bill, so don't worry. Seriously, it's OK, we know every time we gas up. We do the ratio in our head. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2015 (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. Missvain (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kızlar Sahada[edit]

Kızlar Sahada (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 amateur sports club Deunanknute (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]