< 2 January	4 January >

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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper (2012 film)

[edit]

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

Non-notable film by non-notable director. No reliable independent sources to establish importance. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has some coverage and reviews... but it seems the film has a touch more coverage on its wider DVD release title of Outback Revenge. Thank goodness too... fewer false positives. Back in a while. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

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

Comment: I'm finding some hits. I think that at the very least we can have an article for the director and redirect there. I found a review from HN.n, which is usable as a RS, and some minor chatter, which I've added to the page. I did find this German language review and it appears to be written by a staff member, but I can't tell much more than that since I'm completely unfamiliar with German language sources. I know that 28 Days Later Analysis doesn't really seem like it'd be a truly reliable source, but it is used as a source in this academic text. I typically don't use it on here, but I know that others have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very bad draft for the director. It was G13'd but REFUNDed. Lots of SPA activity I think. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And better to establish a notability of his works before allowing that mess back.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compliance with WP:Before. You have put the cart before the horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GIGO. Try Outback revenge for a search rather than Sleeper. Try Bing.com instead of Google. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue was never whether this was a "good" movie or whether you would (a) pay to see it, (b) wait till you can buy it, (c) wait till you can rent it, or (d) wait till its on Netflix (or cable). IMO, those are the real reviews for films. {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks sufficient to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established and shown in the improved article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decently sourced and notable. Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above, but could definitely improve User:Layla, the remover

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. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Nürnberg

[edit]

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

Yet another recently created German interchange article. It's claimed to be an "important" interchange but there's nothing supporting this claim; article shows it to be a typical cloverleaf with one ramp unfolded, an extremely common configuration. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that you haven't read WP:N since before 2008. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked six of these AfD's now, and i'm only just now learning the difference between a Kreuz and a Dreieck, and the fact that we have two different templates, one for each. Given that you present yourself as an expert by proposing this discussion, perhaps you can explain the difference. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails the General Notability Guideline, as it does not display "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 13:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the article currently sits, there is no evidence it passes WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it does. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An absolutely ordinary interchange with no evidence of GNG being met, and no special presumption for being named - when every interchange is specially named, none of them are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rika Nishimura

[edit]

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

Search for reliable sources doesn't come up with anything substantial, save for a brief mention of a Usenet newsgroup that was created for this individual. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Japanese article only contains reliable source, but the depth does not appear to satisfy the "significant coverage" provision of WP:GNG. —Farix (t | c) 22:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. —Farix (t | c) 22:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Farix (t | c) 22:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Few sources found at all, none usable. The BLP considerations are obvious, and quality sources are absolutely vital. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. --Artene50 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The EN Wikipedia article neglects to mention that the subject of the article wasn't just a gravure idol but an underage nude model from the 80s before the enactment of specific legislation in Japan banned such photography in 1999. With reference to JA Wikipedia [1] Subject is listed as being from an impoverished family in rural Thailand before being 'rescued' from human trafficking by a Japanese photographer and working under a pseudonym in child pornography; there are no WP:RS sources worth mentioning and there is no WP:BIO. Jun Kayama 14:51, 6 January 2016 (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 deleted by SuperMarioMan, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (SEFPRODUCTIONS) in violation of ban or block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Hound film (2016)

[edit]

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

Future film that currently fails the notability guideline. The director also appears to fail the relevant notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced (one cite is to an RT review of a previous film) and absolutely WP:TOOSOON assuming this even gets to production.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G5 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SEFPRODUCTIONS Bazj (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do cover unreleased films, as long as they do get some coverage. See Category:Upcoming films which currently contains almost 1000 articles. But in this case this "article" is devoid of information. Who created this film, in what country, what language, etch. We do not even have a proper title. This is not even a stub, its no article at all. Dimadick (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And I will have to disagree with Loriendrew about the existence of a Rotten Tomatoes "review" about the previous film Black Shuck (2012). That page only mentions the existence of this film. It has no reviews from either critics or audience, just 2 people interested in seeing it. Compare the same website's page on on Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. That one has noted 316 reviews from critics, and 171,138 user ratings. Dimadick (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the review is a non-review (semantics), it still has no relevancy to the notability of this article. I was explaining why I said unsourced when there was a reference/link.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (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. WP:G3. The only "metro" a check shows for Sheboygan Falls is Metro PCS. Wikipedia is not for things that were made up one day. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheboygan Falls Metro

[edit]

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

I see no sign that the concept of "Sheboygan Falls Metro" is used anywhere in the world except in the present article. This is close to WP:MADEUP and certainly fails our policies against original research. Pichpich (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sheboygan Falls is part of the Sheboygan MSA, plain and simple. Judging from the attempted article List of the tallest buildings in the Sheboygan Falls Metro, the original editor needs some prodding that Wikipedia isn't for MADEUP info. Nate • (chatter) 06:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info; creator JacksonKonrad4318 (talk · contribs) is obvious sock of blocked Jackosn7775 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nate • (chatter) 07:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The "Sheboygan Falls Metropolitan Area" simply does not exist. Fails WP:V. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't a serious encyclopedic topic if it's from a small town right next to a much larger city. Royal broil 04:31, 7 January 2016 (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 Snow Keep. Never close this early but outcome's blatantly obvious here, Notability is obviously going to be judged differently on each article so this bundle is rather silly!, Anyway obvious Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Green Party

[edit]

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

Nominating multiple Green Party articles for deletion because they show no claim to notability failing WP:ORG, and fail to properly cite sources. Delete Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, block and topic ban disruptive nominator, who is on a weird political jihad with no grounding in deletion policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep purely disruptive nonsense. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles are sourced. NE Ent 21:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - article is sourced and notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In this case it is not appropriate to add multiple articles for deletion. Each state has a unique article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, even if the articles need improvements. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all passes WP:ORG.--TM 23:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. There are plenty of sources to substantiate notability for each of these articles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep all. How do we force the author/s to reference them properly? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You remove the unferenerenced material, but when I do that someone seems to revert me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Green Party of Hawaii because the sources show notability; the party has elected several officials in the past (disclosure: I created that page in 2004). Procedural keep the others, because (as Magnolia677 correctly pointed out) these are not suitable for a multiple AfD, since each affiliate has a different level of notability. Note that even if not notable in themselves, each of these articles would be a good merge/redirect to the national party. Neutrality^talk 01:41, 4 January 2016 (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 deleted by Bbb23, CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Langdon

[edit]

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

Unreferenced and non-notable fictional character of either a non-notable film (or a hoax). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piggy Piggy Film. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely unreferenced, and with no indication of notability. Besides the article's creator did not even bother to wikify it or add categories, so this is likely an orphan as well. Dimadick (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2016 (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. By raw numbers this at first blush looks like a no consensus, but AfD is not a vote. While it's not forbidden for very new editors to comment in an AfD, it is necessary that their comments specifically address policy compliance. In this case, they often did not. The discussion here seems to have reasonably come to the conclusion that this subject is unlikely to pass the applicable SNG, and no indication whatever that the article may pass the GNG. Especially given that this is a biography of a living person in a potentially sensitive and controversial area, the outcome must then be a delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kinzie Kenner

[edit]

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

I can't imagine that cream dream is a notable or significant achievement. I'm not even clear what you have to do to win in. Therefore fails PORNBIO and GNG. Note that interviews are primary sources and therefore do not add to notability, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cream Dream is an individual-based category of the well-known XRCO Awards, meeting the letter of PORNBIO. I'm leaning weak keep without a compelling reason why not. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The XRCO Award for Cream Dream satisfies WP:PORNBIO#1. The only awards excluded from PORNBIO at the moment are scene-related and ensemble categories. Consensus in a couple of recent discussions favors excluding award categories issued in two years or less as well. Cream Dream is not scene-related/ensemble and has existed for 15 years. Also known as Teen Cream Dream, this award is given to female performers who were prominently featured in the teen pornography genre that year, so it goes hand in hand with PORNBIO#2 ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre"). Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - winner, meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's hard to say that an award is well-known/significant when, as here, there's not even a reliable source saying what it's given out for. If Rebecca's explanation is accurate, this is just another niche award, like the MILF categories (which by consensus don't establish notability), with no solid inclusion criteria, and is more of a consolation prize for actresses who weren't nominated for more genuinely significant awards. It's quite a stretch to say that (often) mid-twenties women dressing up as/pretending to be high school girls constitutes a significant genre, and it's really hard to believe that this performer has made "unique contributions" to it. The bottom line for me is this: No real independent reliability sourcing for the article, no source explaining what the award is even given out for, and no sources indicating that the vaguely named "Cream Dream Award" is significant, means that the article subject falls well below the notability threshold. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. XRCO Award is well-known/significant award given by organization! (since 1985!). Browsing your comments, only AVN is well-known/significant and nothing more. PORNBIO not say "only AVN". So, you wrong. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How dishonest. There is absolutely no consensus against including MILF, Teen, or any other "niche" awards in PORNBIO. In fact, there is consensus that this specific award, XRCO's Cream Dream, does satisfy PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How dishonest? Not in the least. You, however, are citing a five-year-old AFD that predates important revisions to PORNBIO, and, in particular, the consensus that we take into account both the awardgiver and the award category in determining in determining whether an award category is significant. You know perfectly well there was a consensus that the MILF awards don't meet the "well-known"/"significant" standard of PORNBIO. In fact, during the late 2013 discussions that led to the current PORNBIO revisions, you acknowledged that explicitly. You said "You think MILF awards are insignificant? So, if a porn actress actually won one of these awards, not a nomination but an actual win, she would not be notable?" That shows that the issue was clearly framed and discussed. It didn't go your way. If anybody here's beingdishonest, it would be the editor who pretends the relevant discussions didn't happen (and who was called out by two admins for "appalling" bad faith in a deletion discussion a while back). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a couple of users stating an opinion does not equal consensus. Secondly, AfD's do not automatically become irrelevant with age and you know it. You cite even older AfD's in discussions all the time. You did it just last month. The only changes made to PORNBIO after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allysin Chaynes (2nd nomination) were to exclude scene-related/ensemble categories and nominations. Look at the difference between PORNBIO when that AfD took place and PORNBIO now. Since XRCO's Cream Dream is not scene-related/ensemble and Chaynes won the award, that AfD's outcome is still relevant today. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2005, Teagan Presley won both New Starlet and Cream Dream at the same XRCO ceremony. [2] In 2008, Bree Olson won both Starlet of the Year and Cream Dream at the same XRCO ceremony. [3] In 2013, Lily Carter won both Best Actress and Cream Dream at the same XRCO ceremony. [4] Your claim that XRCO's Cream Dream award is "a consolation prize for actresses who weren't nominated for more genuinely significant awards" is false. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award is non-notable. We are dealing with an industry that manufactures awards and in other ways tries to create an aura of notability. We need to cut through this fog and limit articles to being on people who actually are notble. The person here is not, so the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The XRCO Awards are obviously a "well-known industry award" ceremony, and the (Teen) Cream Dream Award category has been given out to a virtual whos-who of young porn starlets in the past. The past AfDs related to Allysin Chaynes also seem to be illustrative here, and I see no reason to go against that past concensus now. Guy1890 (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. PORNBIO requires that an award be "well-known and significant". Being "well-known" isn't enough, being notable isn't enough. One of the reasons the guideline language was changed was the consensus recognition that the nature of an award category needed to be taken into account in assessing its weight/value in evaluating notability. "Best Actress" is a much more significant award than "Best Boobs". "Best New Actress" is much more significant than "Twitter Queen". At the time of the Allysin Chaynes AFD, PORNBIO did not take award category significance into account, and it indicated that all notable awards met its requirements. Extensive discussion and consensus has made the PORNBIO SNG significantly more restrictive. Surviving an AFD before the pertinent SNG just plainly doesn't doesn't show much, if anything, if whether a subject meets current requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been actively participating at AfD, we've always taken into account both whether the award ceremony in question was a "well-known industry award" and whether the specific award category in question was a "significant" (or major, in my own words) award category. I think the history of who's been given the XRCO (Teen) Cream Dream Award proves that it's a major award category. It's also pretty clear (from the evidence presented above) that it's not at all "a consolation prize for actresses who weren't nominated for more genuinely significant awards." Guy1890 (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guy1890.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - As stunning as she is we don't keep articles based on looks!, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Obviously, a discussion needs to be had regarding what awards are considered notable under WP:PORNBIO. Without a clear definition, this AfD is headed for "no consensus". clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, no no, no. The standard in PORNBIO is "well-known and significant". Notable isn't enough. This point is supported by broiad consensus, and isn't porn-specific. The fact that a few SPAs and porn devotees tendentiously dispute this doesn't render the longstanding consensus inapplicable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Define "well known and significant" then, since there seems to be some disagreement. clpo13_(talk) 21:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca Min al Khadr (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca. I'll agree, though, that the article doesn't make it clear that the XRCO award is notable. The article could use some work. For example, she was also nominated for Female Performer of the Year in the AVN Awards in 2007 but this isn't mentioned in the article. Perhaps there are other awards she's won that weren't noted — I think more work on the article could make this a clearer "keep". pumik9 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Passes bare minimum notability at a glance. I echo the sentiment this article seems to need improvement.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep her contributions to the field of teen-aged girl adult pleasure films cannot go unoticied'. Considering her prestigious (and very well deserved) win of the "Cream Dream" award helps this young beaut pass GNG by a mile and not to mention PORNOGRAPHICBIOPGAPHY. I also took into consideration the awarding committee, X-Rated Critics Organization, which is on par if not above the level of other awarding bodies such as the International Olympic Committee and the Nobel Committees. Julie2016 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a ridiculous nomination, sadly, it looks like the deltioninists will win. I suggest the closing admin strike out any !votes not based on policy and I heavily suspect sockputting or at least meatpuppting in this thread ;)Julie2016 (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - User:Julie2016 is a brand new account that came right to AFD, something a bit interesting for a new account to do. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

unsuprisingly but still interesting, I'm distantly related to Jonathan Goldsmith, hope that clears some things up :) Julie2016 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Under WP:GNG, significant coverage means source material that addresses the topic directly and in detail. So much has been made above about the award yet there is little to no coverage that addresses this award life event for Kinzie Kenner. What is comes down to is that the collective of available source material needs to provide a detailed description of Kinzie Kenner's life that portrays her experience of life events. The source material in the article, some of which is not Wikipedia reliable source material, only provides just basic facts. I did a search and did not find source material for the article. This explains why the article reads like a List of Kinzie Kenner facts. Because of the lack of source material, the Wikipedia article cannot be improved to provide a portrait of her life events and her experience of these life events. Delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolton Krottinger

[edit]

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

I'm unconvinced that Krottinger meets our notability guidelines for inclusion. His military actions, whilst commendable, do not meet the guidelines provided at WP:SOLDIER. The other given claims to notability are as the CEO of Veteran Social Media and Condottieri, neither are companies about which we currently have articles, and neither seem notable in their own right.

Examining the five references in the article reveals the individual's Facebook page, their company blog, a photo of the individual on a media site, proof of company ownership, and an article from Pensacola News Journal. Only the last of these is really relevant, but it's more focussed on Krottinger's company — Condottieri — than on him as an individual. Looking online there's a few other mentions in local press but nothing that stands out to me as significant.

Given the article appears to have been authored solely by it's subject (VeteranSocialMedia (talk · contribs); subsequently KoltonKrottinger (talk · contribs)) (an owner of an online reputation agency) my inescapable conclusion is that it has been written largely for promotional purposes about an individual who does not (yet, at least) meet our notability criteria._└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No signs of a better encyclopedia article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia as a Nordic country

[edit]

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

Article seems to be an essay advocating a specific point of view: that Estonia is a 'Nordic' country and not a 'Baltic' one. (The Estonian language is related to Finnish, but not to either the Scandinavian languages or the Baltic languages of Lithuania or Latvia.)

Defining a country in this way is obviously a complex, contentious thing (is the UK a 'Germanic country'?), and I'm concerned that the article has no academic citations defining 'Nordic countries' or how Estonia does (and does not) resemble them. In addition, the article does not cover topics like the large minority of people of Russian ethnicity and other ethnic groups in Estonia. Blythwood (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humble sidenote: How is the immigration of foreign immigrants during an illegal foreign occupation related to a country belonging to a cultural entity? Do the close to 10% of Muslim immigrants in Sweden make Sweden a non-Nordic country? H2ppyme (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay and opinion piece. --Soman (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for essays/opinion pieces. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By WP:N and WP:ESSAY, this article obviously should be deleted. Furthermore, the article has no citations (WP:REFERENCE). ♪ Alberto79 ♪ ^{talk-Contributions} 00:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay/Opinion. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, synthesis in form of an essay. Sander Säde 07:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essay. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a viable article covering this topic in some way (as I understand it, many Estonians identify with the Nordic countries, though many also don't), but this content isn't useful in developing it. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote There is a debate going on, which in some, perhaps not this form should be included in Wikipedia. However I don't think there are "many" Estonians, who don't identify Estonia as a Nordic country. H2ppyme (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where is this debate going on? --Soman (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stand alone article. Any RS cited points can be incorporated into other relevant articles. It is a synthesis/essay (as noted above) with OR problems. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Estonia. Not worth keeping as a separate article as it seems to only push forward one viewpoint. JIP | Talk 19:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J-Interop

[edit]

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

Article doesn't convey how this software meets either our WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE notability guidelines. Other than the original research paper published by it's authors, the best other mentions I can find is passing references in a couple of other papers (see [5]) and a few blogs, stackoverflow questions and the like. To my mind this doesn't meet our notability threshold. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Also, pinging author Sae1962 for comment, along with the only other contributor Dialectric who previously flagged notability concerns. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant WP:RS coverage. Per nom, a search turns up some scattered sourcing but nothing substantial. Dialectric (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2016 (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 for now it seems (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Life Church Monastery

[edit]

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

Non-notable offshoot of the Universal Life Church. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears quite sufficiently sourced OP replaced the "speedy tag" twice ([6], [7]) making an assumption that only an admin can decline a speedy. Sufficient sourcing currently, and apparently has sufficient rights to the name. Toledo Blade and other news articles establish this as a distinct and therefore notable variant of the original ULC. [8] and [9] mentioned by the NYT as a distinct entity from the ULC in two separate articles. Collect (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a working copy of that Toledo Blade link. I'm not sure how merely establishing something as distinct makes it notable, and those New York Times pieces you link to are just passing mentions, and are the sort of incidental coverage that does not establish notability per WP:GROUP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly meets notability and sourcing for WP:ORG.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For reasons already given above. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 01:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Sufficiently notable as a separate entity from Universal Life Church. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logelloop

[edit]

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

Article fails to convey notability of this software per the criteria at WP:NSOFTWARE. I can find no references to this product in any research papers; best I can find generally is this article on a French site which I'm unconvinced is sufficient to meet our notability threshold. Article appears to have been written by the product's creator. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, and pinging author Philippe Ollivier for comment, along with Hermera34 who originally tagged for speedy deletion, Adam9007 and Mike Rosoft who applied maintenance tags. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the A7 tag because it doesn't apply; this article is about a piece of software, not the company that made it. I don't know why, but this seems to confuse a lot of people. Adam9007 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Adam9007: just for the record, I completely agree with your actions — this article is not eligible for deletion under CSD A7, hence I've now brought it to AfD. I pinged you only in case you wanted to comment on the deletion discussion, and for completeness, given there's only been 4 contributors to the article. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @UkPaolo: That's nice to know, especially as I recently had a lot of hoo-ha about my interpretation and application of A7! Adam9007 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Philippe Ollivier (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Philippe Ollivier left a blank comment on this page, and the following on my talk page [10], which as a courtesy I'll copy below, since it's relevant to this discussion. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am one of the Logelloop developers and the writer of the article on Logelloop. The base of my article is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinberg_Cubase I mean, I just want to make an article in the same style as as articles about other softwares on Wikipedia.
You'll also find some other articles on audio software as Ableton Live : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableton_Live and I think Logelloop, as a real time looping software, may have an article in Wikipedia.
This article is useful to make link for some pages related to audio looping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_(music), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_looping)
If you think that this article is not useful on Wikipedia, please delete it. Thank you very much, best regards, Philippe Ollivier
— Philippe Ollivier (talk · contribs), [11]

Comment Per the author of this article, sounds like this is a conflict of interest and is strongly discouraged. Perhaps the article should be tagged with the COI tag while this is being discussed. Hermera34 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the references in the article, but the only useful things I have found at the websites are an interview with the author, and a comparison chart (with descriptions apparently copied straight from the authors). Google search didn't return anything much better. I'm afraid it's a delete from me. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet any signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from book, newspaper and other archives, I have searched my university's repository. Found nothing but the link noted by the deletion requesting editor. I have read the general notability guidelines. I do not know if any specific guidelines exist for software. If there are, please guide me. Based on my assessment, this article should be deleted. Xender Lourdes (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xender Lourdes: see WP:NSOFTWARE for our software-specific notability guidelines. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 06:55, 10 January 2016 (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. Delete reasons need to be a lot better than that, Anyway like below there was an impact and all that so i don't believe BLP1E applies, IMHO I think relisting would simply gain more !Keeps so wrapping it up now/ (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nada al-Ahdal

[edit]

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

Based on WP:BLP1E A m i t 웃 17:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. People who watch this video with 9 million views may be curious whether she was really killed: 11 Year Old Child Bride Speaks Out Before Being Killed. The original video of her also has 9 million views, though it doesn't claim she was killed. 2601:600:8500:5B1:218:E7FF:FE7D:6AFA (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. WP:BLP1E A m i t 웃 17:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The real story here is not the video itself, but the worldwide publicity that the video created. That publicity is documented in the article and raises the episode well beyond the scope of WP:BLP1E. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2016 (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 – speedy deleted as created by sock of banned user. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piggy Piggy Film

[edit]

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON, film appears to be "In Development" stage, not meeting film standards of notability. Unreferenced article, unable to find WP:RS on basic search, not in imdb, etc. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a number of reasons. 1.WP:TOOSOON 2. Appears to be a small budget independent film 3. no notable actors/ actresses are appearing in it 4. I've found no news coverage of this film whatsoever, could be a hoax? Seasider91 (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG at best! Just Chilling (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is a vehicle to self-promote this person named Adam Iraki, who has created an article about themselves more than 10 times (see Adam iraki and Adam Iraki logs). I suspect the creator of this page is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Adamiraki. Citobun (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

–SPI initiated, thank you for the idea.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above as well as WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 3 January 2016 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elivelton Ribeiro Dantas

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an inadequately supported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. JTtheOG (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Meets WP:GNG with significant in-depth coverage from multiple sources such as the 2000-word detailed article and interview [12], and other feature pieces such as [13]. Nfitz (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Sebastian

[edit]

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

Questionable notability - almost entirely sourced to sources written by Linus Sebastian himself. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at 2.7 million subscribers he's achieved notoriety. Curro2 (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero reliable source coverage. The number of subscribers has no bearing on notability. Curiocurio (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an almost decade-long presence as one of Youtubes most identifiable technology faces. Although a number of the citations are video based, they cross over separate sources (these videos feature Sebastian but are interviews by independent sources). Citation also exists on 3rd party sites (LifeHacker, DailyDot, TubeFilter, NewEgg Unlocked, etc) which support the significance of Sebastian as a subject in the technology world. Citations created by Sebastian provided only to provide proof of his involvement in his own projects and not to demonstrate notability (and account for 6 out of 14 current citations only). Suggestion is to source further citations and build on the article. --Melonbob (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable by the means of having a significant following and searching on him on the news section does get a bunch of articles out where his videos are referenced or discussed in magazines. A m i t 웃 02:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The number of subscribers *does* have bearing on notability according to the second point of WP:ENT. Sauyon (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - number of subscribers has a bearing on notability per WP:ENT. get on with it..--BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Close

[edit]

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

Article about a random block of flats; the only (unsourced) claims of notability are that it was seen in a Monty Python sketch (Kiss Me Hardy, itself nominated for deletion) and in a horror film (Psychomania). Originally proposed for deletion by User:GB fan; this was removed by the article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unsourced article about an unremarkable block of flats. -- GB fan 15:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with comments above. Article lacks sources and subject lacks notability. Suggest adding brief info to Monty Python page and redirecting the name of this article there. -- delilah_folk 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GB fan. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article on very dull b;ock of flats, no credible claim of notability. This is the second version of this page: previous was PRODed.TheLongTone (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss Me Hardy

[edit]

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

Very short article about a Monty Python sketch. Originally proposed for deletion by User:GB fan: "No indication of notability of this sketch. I looked and could not find a good place to redirect it to." This was removed by the article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just to reiterate, I do not see any notability for this sketch and could not find anywhere to redirect it to as it is not mentioned in the show's article. -- GB fan 15:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. Incidentally creator seems to have a history of creating spurious articles.TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2016 (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 a clear consensus of non-SPA contributors that Chanda does not (yet) meet Wikipedia's inclusion standard of WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Chanda

[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Entrepreneur without WP:RS to prove notability, claim to notability is creating a company which does not have a corresponding article, WP:WTAF. Article previously deleted via WP:A7 and WP:G11. Author also created talk page assessment of high and C level article.☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is not cited sufficiently or written in an impartial way. Subject does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. Support suggestion to delete. -- delilah_folk 20:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is obvious enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete This article should not be articles for deletion the article contains useful information about the person in it. ☾raysum2020☽ ☏(ring-ring)
Delete - this businessperson is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia; there is no coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote yourself or your brand. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted. This article should not be delete because the person is yet to be a public figure sources will be added as soon as possible from the author. I don't Support suggestion to delete this article. -- Bill_wander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.123.200 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — 41.72.123.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If, as you say, "the person is yet to be a public figure," that is a reason why the article should be deleted. WP:GNG --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Article is with great importance to its nation and the community at large, everything will be polished up sooner. I'm not in Support of deletion. -- George_Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.123.200 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — 41.72.123.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per nom. Note that WP:USUAL might apply - if the company does end up becoming notable, the subject might as well. But as of today? Not so much. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted Please don't delete the company will be ready by the 23 of this month 2016. therefore everything will be ready, there is a bit of delay of funding by now it should have been up and running. Jefman — 41.72.102.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Move to Draft: namespace Since the author seems to think they can improve the article, although it is clearly not yet ready for publication, it should be draft-ified rather than deleted to allow some time for them to come up with evidence of notability from reliable soruces. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note–This is not a new article, it was A7/G11'ed in June 2015 for the same reasons.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 04:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note : I have struck a duplicate !vote made by IP 41.72.123.200. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom clearly not notable at present.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted can't hurt to say it just one more time ͡{° ͜ʖ ͡°}. Julie2016 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)— Julie2016 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Wittstock/Dosse

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dreieck Wittstock/Dosse

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

Interchanges are not inherently notable, and this one has no claim for notability made. This is not surprising, as it is an ordinary trumpet interchange of which there are dozens upon dozens. It was recently nominated as part of an omnium-gatherum which was closed due to the possibility that some of those nominated might be notable. This one isn't. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails the General Notability Guideline, as it does not display "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 13:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." This one doesn't. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a bog-standard interchange with no evidence of notability. Named interchanges are standard on Autobahns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 10 January 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. S. Jennsen

[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. References are self-published or blog entries and do not establish notability. ubiquity (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NOT HELPFUL I love Wikipedia, and have contributed to it monetarily every year, for years now. I have always wanted to be a contributor in terms of content, as well. And I finally had something to add. Very discouraging. I work in IT and ordinarily think of myself as a competent, intelligent person, but... honestly, this has been a nightmarish experience so far. I'm having a very hard time figuring out what content, precisely, you object to. Did I not provide proof enough this author exists, has published books, as won awards, been interviewed. What is the issue, exactly? Because I have read over the guidelines, and honestly, they aren't real clear and easy to understand. I'm not a scholar, but I don't think I should have to be one. What a horrible process, to be notified your hard work is about to be simply deleted, rather than having a person tell you specifically what needs to be done. These links, guidelines are not easy to understand. Can't I get a little help in fixing the issue rather than just threatening to wipe everything out? I have read the guidelines, several times. I find it confusing. Is she not famous enough for you yet? Can someone give me some understandable feedback? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouglasHatten (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry if this has been confusing. First, your article is not about to be deleted. I proposed that its deletion be discussed. This is the discussion. Other editors will weigh in and a consensus will be arrived at. If the consensus is that the article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, it will be deleted. Otherwise it will remain. The discussion takes at least a week, and often longer, if more time is required to reach consensus. If you think it will help, you can continue to make changes to the article during the process.

The issue is that I don't think Ms Jennsen meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I could be wrong, that's what this discussion is for. The guidelines call for " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." When I look at the sources on the page (and I admit you have a lot of them), I see self-published entries (such as her own web page) and a number of personal blogs about her, but I don't see any strong coverage. I googled her and found the same. Are there any newspapers or magazines that have mentioned her? The awards you mentioned also seem to have been awarded by individual bloggers in their own personal "best" columns. I don't deny that she exists, or has published, or has won awards, or has been interviewed. So have I. That doesn't make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article, though. ubiquity (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will endeavor to seek out additional, verifiable and independent sources such as newspapers or magazines. reply added by DouglasHatten

Unless this person has published within professional editorials (in that case, it should be precised), this article should be deleted.~~Rinko87

————————————

I did some checking. The The Valley Planet link I already included is a newspaper article. And not even from her hometown, but an unsolicited piece done by a reporter covering a convention she spoke at last summer. http://valleyplanet.com/con-corner-g-s-jennsens-aurora-rising-issue-214-82715/

This is a piece I found from a local newspaper. http://hhjonline.com/gs-jennsen-wr-native-and-toprated-science-fiction-author-p6932-95.htm

- - What exactly does "published within professional editorials" mean?.

DouglasHatten

—————————————

Comment. @DouglasHatten: try looking at WP:42. It's a brief introduction to Wikipedia's concept of notability. The problem is that we need significant coverage in reliable sources. "Significant coverage" means that it's more than just name-dropping someone or a single-sentence mention. Reliable sources are publications that have editorial control, employ professional writers, and have a history of fact-checking and publishing corrections. We can't accept citations to most self-published sources, such as blogs, home pages, social networking sites, etc., because they have no editorial oversight. One exception is that we can accept certain self-published statements made by the subject. As far as the two sources you've listed above, they look reliable. If you can find more like that, it will probably save the article. Others may disagree, but I'm not really convinced that two stories in small-town newspapers is enough coverage to satisfy our inclusion criteria. It may simply be too soon to create an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not as brilliant as I thought. From the very beginning I should have simply Googled the definition of the word "notability" instead of trying to decipher its meaning from the Wikipedia page. I suggest you add this very simple definition on your help page. Notability: a famous or important person. So, I was essentially right in my suspicion. She is simply not famous enough yet. It's that simple. You can add all the overly complicated details of what determines that in the fine details, but it would have really made things so much clearer for me to simply hear that she is not famous or well-known enough yet to be included in an Encyclopedia. I think I read somewhere in the guidelines that one measure for whether something belongs in Wikipedia is if it would normally show up in an encyclopedia. I totally get that now. However:

The content of old-fashioned printed Encyclopedia's were limited by finite space. The Internet is not.
I could have sworn that over the years I had seen less famous people, small companies, organizations, or individuals in the past, so I did not realize this.

Setting those two things aside. I'll resign from my efforts to publish my article. All I wish to say in closing is that all someone had to tell me is that G. S. Jennsen is not famous enough for Wikipedia. So much easier to understand. Thank you for your patience. I am sorry I wasted your time, and mine. DouglasHatten —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Science fiction author appears not to meet the general notability guidelines (for example no mention at Locus) and the creator has indicated (above) acquiescence in deletion. The article was created on 17 December and tagged for AfD about three hours later. --Bejnar (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is just enough reliable source material to pass GNG guidelines. The article needs inprovement on format, and more definite content would help, but the subject does seem to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Could you be specific as to what multiple independent reliable sources you are referring? Her books appear to be self-published (Hypernova Publishing has published only four books (all hers) and is located in the same town in Colorado; see also here which says they were self-published) and not to have been reviewed in any reliable sources. The key here is reliable sources not blogs (like her "awards", maerwilson, terribleminds or goodreads). The two local papers cited (Houston Home Journal from Georgia and Valley Planet from Tennessee) are unlikely to have the fact-checking and editorial review required for reliable sources. So what are the recognized reliable sources? --Bejnar (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that papers so far removed from where she is based find it worthwhile to create in depth articles on her shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none what the article currently says even suggests minimal notability and improvement. This could certainly be better no doubt so we'll wait for that. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with more coverage in RS and more accomplished then state pageant winners. Legacypac (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am hoping you will decide to keep it. I am willing to continue to work on it as I can collect more information in my spare time. This author is gaining quite a following. She tours around the country, even out of country (Canada, for example) to appear as a guest at conventions, etc. She has sold hundreds of thousands of copies of books. [DougHatten] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DouglasHatten (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have seen on her site where she has appeared at conventions. I found one in particular that I could cite, the inaugural Magic City Con in Birmingham, AL in 2015 where she appeared as a panelist giving a presentations on Worldbuilding in Science Fiction and Getting Your Work in Print. There website http://www.magiccitycon.com/ now lists the information for 2015, but I found the YouTube video the convention published, showing the author listed in the video at 2:25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvzGMxosCg&feature=youtu.be

comment added by DouglasHatten —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published author with no significant recognition in the genre she publishes in. Superficial pieces in non-notable media near her original hometown do next to nothing to establish notablity. Not a single professional sale or review has been documented. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, have been unable to find anything that assists for notability, just lots of fansites and seller sites, most of the article references are the same. Some of them are newspaper/magazines but these are extremely local (freebies?) ie. "meet the cultural needs of Huntsville and the Tennessee Valley."[14] and daily newspaper for Houston County, Georgia [15]. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For The Moment , though the subject has done a lot of work and one day may become well known, they are not yet known due to lack of mainstream coverage and does not yet meet WP:ANYBIO. baswana89 talk 12:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — baswana89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Administrator note - Editor baswana89 began editing at Wikipedia yesterday, heading directly for AfD discussions, which is a peculiar place to start. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:DouglasHatten, if the result is to delete then once sufficient weight of reliable sources are found that you (or anyone else) can request that the article be [to userspace] for update and repair before requesting a move back to mainspace. (I'd like to see non-trivial reliable references that establish her notability as a genre author). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 02:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; You can always make the article again iff enough non-primary material is sourced to do so/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2016 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S. Dallas Dance

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN John from Idegon (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's not really a politician, he's a notable school district superintendent who has been personally recognized by the President of the United States and is consistently on Baltimore news sources. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 08:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Primary sources like the school district biography do not establish notability. Being "recognized" by the president is not sufficient. The article needs strong secondary sources, preferably including significant coverage in publications outside Baltimore. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think he satisfies WP:NPOL criterion #2 as a local politician who has received significant coverage. If you check Google News, there's plenty of hits in The Baltimore Sun, and that's not a minor newspaper. He was also interviewed in a documentary film and named to an advisory position by Obama. This guy looks pretty notable to me. Non-notable local politicians don't get honored by the President of the US. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see coverage beyond the routine. The only article I'm finding that is about him (as opposed to tangental mention in articles about the district or interviews, which do not generally speak to notability) is the article on his appointment, and that was quite short. There is 0 significant coverage from outside Baltimore. It's worth noting that per List of the largest school districts in the United States by enrollment, Baltimore is the 26th largest school district. Of the top 10 districts, only half of those district's leaders have bios on Wikipedia, and one of those was an automatic notability situation, due to Puerto Rico's situation of being one school district and its leader is a cabinet level position. Superintendent of Schools is an important position, but importance does not equate with notability. John from Idegon (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I understand NinjaRobotPirate's rationale, I see it from the opposite view. John from Idegon's analysis in his comment pretty much sums it up. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 3 January 2016 (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/2016 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything he's done that's special. Sure, the Sun is a major newspaper, but this is still effectively just local coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, going back as far as 2005 when he was appointed principal at age 24 to the appointment by President Obama:

Students deserve equity \ S. Dallas Dance: 'We cannot let demographics continue to predict our students' performance
S. Dallas Dance appointed to federal commission on African American education
ISTE board member S. Dallas Dance named “20 to Watch” honoree by the National School Boards Association
Baltimore County selects Dance as next school superintendent
S. Dallas Dance recognized by President Obama as "Champion of Change"
New Principal 'Very Blessed' At 24, Dance Named To Oversee Henrico's Brookland Middle. Richmond Times Dispatch July 15, 2005

Meets WP:GNG. Keep. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2016 (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) 10:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim White

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough to meet GNG. Nothing to indicate any notice outside Chattanooga. John from Idegon (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claim to fame is heading a small non-profit. No non-trivial coverage beyond the usual local stuff. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no way in which this person passes the GNG or is notable as the head of a company, and with all the boards and stuff she's served on, it's clear that this is vanispamcruft. Drmies (talk)
Delete- This is just a CV dressed up as an encyclopedia article. Reyk _YO! 10:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per 3 above editors and nom. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New and improved references, Checks out for WP:BIO & WP:NOTABLE. This was why it was kept the last time in this Serial WP:PROD. We ought not to be axing coverage of notable female CEOs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We ought not to be axing coverage of notable CEOs period, and we ought not to be keeping non-notable ones, regardless of gender. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significant coverage in this article in Chattanooga Times Free Press and this article in Garden & Gun is enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 3 January 2016 (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/2016 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this article was seriously underdeveloped. It is a WP:Orphan. No Projects were listed on its talk page (corrected now). The notification of the proposed deletion should be again relisted/refreshed to include all those projects. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references that you missed. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CV masquerading as a WP article. She's a well-meaning local doing the best she can for her local community, but that doesn't help her meet WP:GNG. Local coverage doesn't count, nor does her having been nearly in the presence of Bob Corker. Passing mentions in articles about the town don't count either. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked one of the references in the article and it was totally focused on the topic. I don't know why this is at AfD. I once fell into the trap of !voting to delete because all of the references were local, but I was wrong. Unscintillating (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a vanity article for someone of little or no notability. After reading the appended references, one has to conclude that this is a highly accomplished woman who has risen to a leadership role in the community and has the potential to rise much further. She is still on the local level, as has been pointed out, but so are tens of thousands of other entries with fewer references and less to show in terms of achievements. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First and foremost, there is absolutely nothing in WP guidelines that says local coverage is unacceptable. Specifically, the guidelines say the sources determine whether or not a subject is notable. If local sources repeatedly cover her in pieces such as this, she is notable to Chattanooga. But apparently WP:BEFORE wasn't done, as there are more than local sources. She has been covered in an article by Bloomberg Business], was a featured speaker for [TEDxTalks] event, was one of the women's profiles of CitiScope Magazine and been covered on news affiliates for [ABC] and [CBS]. Meets GNG with significant coverage over time in multiple independent sources. SusunW (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:SIGCOV 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as it's worth noting the listed company River City Company actually goes to the Chattanooga, Tennessee article so I would've actually suggested moving to the company article if it had its own article thus delete for now until a better independent article is available. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO & WP:NOTABLE. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep – Appears to be at least somewhat notable, but this article is in need of some work. United States Man (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Per Wikipedia standards, article passes the criteria . Devopam (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Appears to fall under the bar required for BLP. More sources indicating broad coverage would be needed for keep. Delta13C (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the sources presented in this AfD:

Free Times Press. This doesn't say anything substantial. It's perfunctory local coverage about a local person who got appointed to run a local non-profit.
Garden and Gun. This is a web zine which describes itself as, a lifestyle brand. The article itself is more of a listicle than anything else, covering, Five Chattanoogans helping the city surge. Kim White gets a paragraph, same as everybody else. That's not substantial coverage.
Bloomberg Business. I certainly agree this is a major news outlet, with national scope, so good there. But, the article's not about White. She's mentioned twice, halfway through the piece. Again, not significant coverage.
TEDx. Certainly, I would classify giving a TED talk as a significant event. It's first-person, however, so that's a problem. But, as I look closer, I realize it's not really a TED Talk. It's a TEDx Talk From the web site, This video was filmed at an independently organized TEDx event and uploaded by the organizer. I'm having trouble fitting that into our WP:RS requirements.

This adds up to a number of passing mentions and dubious sources. I don't see it passing WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quote, "Looking at the sources presented in this AfD:" Seriously? You only looked at this AfD and you represent this as sufficient to form a delete opinion under our WP:N guideline? Quote, "Kim White gets a paragraph, same as everybody else. That's not substantial coverage." Seriously? What WP:GNG says is, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The nature of the statement implies that you are unaware of what defines "trivial mentions". What makes this post different is that you are being forthright about your research, and in so doing you give other editors a chance to refute your comments using the force of reason, instead of typing "delete fails WP:GNG". Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Cunard notes above, "the significant coverage in this article in Chattanooga Times Free Press and this article in Garden & Gun is enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline." -- Jreferee (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2016 (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. WP:IAR application of U5 in articlespace, as this was clearly intended as a social-networking page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hewagamage

[edit]

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

Looks weird, I'm not sure if it is ok. 333 -blue 10:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Looks like a Facebook group in the wrong place. Were this a user page I'd tag it for WP:U5 for speedy deletion. Certainly violates WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I have always said that there needs to be a speedy deletion category for pages that are not intended to be encyclopedic articles. This may fall under WP:G6's "unambiguously created in error" catchall, but I think this is a prime example of why we need a speedy deletion category for purely non-encyclopedic content. WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTHERE also apply. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Mosier

[edit]

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

I would've actually PRODed this if not for the claims of having coverage from notable sources so here we are; the best my searches found were only this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nothing of significance which may warrant notability. sst✈ 11:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While not incredibly common, I was still struck by the number of folks who have this combination in their names when I did my searches. Regarding this particular person, nothing but trivial mentions and some primary sources. Scholar gives her highest quote count at 17. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or any of the niche notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search shows that this writer has contributed to some key literary publications and that there are indeed more good quality links to support inclusion on WP. She is also signed to major international publisher Random House and has a page on their website. While those not involved in literature and journalism may not know the significance of said work, as a professional in this industry I am very much aware. I will add my findings to the page later on. Given the lacking coverage of journalists and writers on Wikipedia at the moment, I think it's important to have knowledge of the specialist area to judge a page like this, so I hope other literary types might contribute to the discussion. -- delilah_folk 15:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Random House publication is sufficient; agree with @Delilah folk:. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reviews of her work in School Library Journal, Booklist and Book Report. She's a children's/ya book writer. I'll add sources and fix up article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I cleaned it up and added a few more references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2016 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigarah

[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria, very brief and very few mentions in external sources. Written with a promotional tone. Flagged in June but no significant improvements since then. ツStacey (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - One of the sources is dead and a 404. Japan Times [16] has an additional article which qualifies for WP:RS but she never did release a 3rd album in 2013 meeting WP:N and she never charted in Oricon [17]. Article has nothing to merit WP:MUSICBIO and is heavily slanted towards promotion. Jun Kayama 17:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply none of this suggests even a minimally better article. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched for both English and Japanese sources, nothing would suggest notability. sst✈ 11:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Against Violence and Extremism

[edit]

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

Incoherent. Lacking proper references Rathfelder (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory news search found at least one article referencing WAVE in a notable manner, that is, accepted and promoted by the United Nations General Assembly. I'm sure with time more references can be found. Lithorien (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Farsi name turns up tons of results in .ir news and government websites, thus notable. --Soman (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Smith (ice hockey)

[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHOCKEY as the EIHL is a top professional league Seasider91 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seasider91: look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. He doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whether the EIHL is a fully professional league (something currently under debate at the WikiProject) is irrelevant. At the most generous, he's played a relatively small number of games without achieving particular distinction, and would fail the most generous conceivable criterion of WP:NHOCKEY. No evidence the player meets the GNG beyond routine match coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 09:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no indication he meets GNG. Reso lute 17:50, 4 January 2016 (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 Burleigh Smith. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Hate the Left

[edit]

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

Meets none of the WP:NFILM criteria, appears to be no secondary coverage at all available online. January (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Burleigh Smith. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. In fact, there only seem to be about 13 Google results for "why I hate the left" "Burleigh Smith" -wikipedia -wikimedia. I'm not honestly sure that he's notable, either, but it'll do for now. The bio seems to have been started by the filmmaker himself, and I wouldn't be surprised if his filmography was similarly made to promote Smith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

Delete or userfy for now, per being somewhat TOO SOON. While the film is completed and is sourcable, its newness affects available sourcing. We can certainly allow a resurrection if/or when it gains better coverage. That said, I am okay with a redirect to Burleigh Smith, with that same proviso.. a return if/when it gains notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Joe's

[edit]

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

Limited notability. I can't see how this can really be expanded upon. Cloudbound (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll note that "can't be expanded upon" is not a criteria for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a direct quote however. I don't think the subject of this article is notable enough. Cloudbound (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From searches, it seems to be a popular outlet in its area of operation. However, I found no independent reliable sources, only adverts, and of the two sources on the article, one is a dead link. The WP article is thus essentially acting as an advertisement for the chain, which violates WP policy. LaMona (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article for simply this local pizza chain. Too soon at best, SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Anderson, Frederick I.; Tweet, Roald D.; E. Lawrence, E. Lawrence (1982). Quad Cities: Joined By A River. Davenport, Iowa: Lee Enterprises. p. 259. ISBN 0910847002. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  The book notes:
  
  Happy Joe's Pizza & Ice Cream Parlor
  Back in 1972, Joe Whitty had a new idea. Why not combine pizza with an old-fashioned ice cream parlor? Unable to sell the concept here to anyone who would back him, he reluctantly took his idea to New Mexico. Finally, a Davenport banker arranged a loan through the Small Business Administration, and he returned to open his first store in East Davenport.
  "Without the SBA, I could never have opeend," Whitty said. "It's difficult when you can't get the banks to loan money."
  He received the loan, and the Happy Joe's chain was born. All of the Happy Joe's restaurants are divided into two sections. Originally, the ice cream parlor had the 1940-style fountain fittings, and sold hard candy and hand-dipped ice cream. The other section sold pizza and was decorated with many nostalgic items such as player pianos and ceiling fans. In keeping with the style of the eighties, Happy Joe's has updated its look, making use of natural tones in its decor. Joe Whitty insists on each restaurant having a home-like atmosphere so families feel welcome. Happy Joe's tries to make even the "little guy" equal, with a platform for children to watch the pizza being made behind a window.
  In the 1970s, Happy Joe Whitty won the pasta crown for innovation. He introduced sauerkrat pizza, taco pizza and specialty sandwiches. More recently he added a bacon, lettuce, tomato pizza, as well as a whole wheat pizza crust. With a chain of more than 100 stores in the United States, Happy Joe's new Egyptian venture opens the Mideast for more growth in the 1980s.
2. Youngquist, Chris (2002-02-16). "Happy Joe celebrates 30 years of pizza making". Quad-City Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Blow the brass horn andsound the sirens. Happy Joe's Pizza & Ice Cream Parlor will turn 30 in November. The brainchild of a North Dakota farm boy, the business remains under the watchful eyes of two of his children while its founder, Lawrence "Happy Joe" Whitty, tests the waters of a retirement punctuated by community voluntarism.
  "I just wanted one little store where my wife and I could run it and not have to work for anyone else," Whitty said of the business he started on Nov. 16, 1972, with a $30,000 Small Business Administration loan.
3. Nothaft, Mark (2015-09-29). "Review: Happy Joe's Pizza keeps it fun with wacky pies". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  The taco-pizza creator, Lawrence Joseph “Happy Joe” Whitty, opened his first pizza joint in 1972. Today, the Iowa-based chain has more than 60 locations across the Upper Midwest and Northern Plains. In June, franchise owner Robyn Aragon opened the first Arizona branch, in the former Pita Di Vita space next to Lifetime Fitness at Gilbert and Warner roads.
4. "A pizza chain that delivers breakfast? Happy Joe's Pizza to unveil prototype in Rockford". Rock River Times. 2005-07-20. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Before opening his first Happy Joe's in 1972, Whitty was nearly let go from another pizza chain for sponsoring a party for special-needs children. An entrepreneur at heart, Whitty said he was inspired rather than discouraged by the experience.
  Whitty noted Happy Joe's franchisees are asked to host an annual holiday party for children with special needs and, to date, the chain has hosted more than 140,000 special-needs children.
5. Beaudette, Cynthia (2009-08-29). "Happy Joe's founder announces plans to replace burned down restaurant". Muscatine Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
6. Bengtson, Jess (2013-09-25). "'Whitty' tales told as torch is passed at Happy Joe's". Crookston Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
7. Turner, Jonathan (2013-04-07). "Joe Whitty recalls a life filled with happiness". Quad-City Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  In 1968, Mr. Whitty became manager of a new Shakey's Pizza in Davenport, then one in Albuquerque, N.M., where he came up with the idea of a combined pizza and ice cream parlor because patrons often walked down the street for ice cream after leaving the restaurant.
  Shakey's wasn't interested in the idea, so after Mr. Whitty moved back to Davenport, he got a $30,000 loan, and the first Happy Joe's opened Nov. 16, 1972, in the Village of East Davenport, where Lagomarcino's is today.
  Mr. Whitty's daughter, Julie, came up with the now-famous name of Happy Joe's.
  Pizza places used to be more "dark beer taverns that sold pizza," he said. "When we came in, we were bright and cheery and exciting -- birthday parties, blowing the horn, blaring the siren, making ice cream sundaes. It was different.
  "I only wanted one restaurant, but every Saturday people kept asking about franchising it," Mr. Whitty said, adding that the first franchise was in Muscatine, and now there are nearly 60 Happy Joe's in six states -- Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Missouri and Minnesota.
  The chain has about 1,500 employees, with a staff of nearly 20 at the home office in Bettendorf.
8. Olson, Dave (2014-11-12). "Popular Fargo pizza parlor says hello to Happy Joe himself". Prairie Business Magazine. Forum News Service. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Whitty, a 77-year-old born in Minot, opened the first Happy Joe’s in Iowa in 1972, striking out on his own after working as a manager for restaurants in the Shakey’s Pizza chain.
  His idea of teaming pizza with ice cream took off, and today the Iowa-based pizza chain has nearly 70 restaurants spread across Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota and Wisconsin.
  While Whitty still keeps an office at the Happy Joe’s corporate headquarters in Iowa, his eldest child, Larry, is president of the corporation, and several other children also hold positions in the corporation.
  Shortly after opening his first Happy Joe’s, Whitty began a custom adopted at every Happy Joe’s location since: One day a year the businesses close to the public in order to host a Christmas party for children with disabilities.
9. Hagerty, Marilyn (2015-06-17). "THE EATBEAT: Indulge in pizza, caramel rolls at Happy Joe's buffet". Grand Forks Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Happy Joe's Pizza and Ice Cream is based in Bettendorf, Iowa. It was founded in 1972 by "Happy Joe" Whitty.
  The Grand Forks restaurant is one of 61 in Midwestern states. Many of the restaurants feature the buffets and are geared toward family gatherings and birthday parties.
10. "Joe Whitty Had Last Laugh On Competitors". TimesDaily. United Press International. 1982-02-27. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
  The article notes:
  
  The concept of serving ice cream with pizza seemed unappetizing even to the giants of the junk food industry.
  But, after struggling for nearly a decade as a mid-level manager for a major pizza chain, Joe Whitty finally convinced a Davenport banker to stop laughing at his idea and lend him $30,000 for the first Happy Joe's Pizza and Ice Cream Parlor.
  Another decade and 150 Happy Joe's franchise outlets later, Whitty is celebrating his success by introducing his pizza-and-ice cream menu to the Middle East, starting with a store in the Egyptian capital of Cairo.
  Whitty, who as a youngster on a farm in Des Lacs, N.D., often dreamed of owning his own business, said he never thought he would be sitting at the helm of a multi-million dollar corporation today.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Happy Joe's to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per new sources presented in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed above demonstrate notability and the potential for expansion. Andrew D. (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One the nominator is wrong by nominating it on the basis that the article is not expandable as this is not a rationale for deletion. This is anti-Wikipedia. Second the subject is covered sufficiently by 3rd party reliable sources as per the refs in the article and the new ones posted here by User:Andrew Davidson. Kansiime (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2016 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Talbert

[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor; apparent one-hit wonder. Quis separabit? 17:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability. Only referenced in IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Meatsgains (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not yet a solid notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 3 January 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imoh David

[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. He doesn't appears to pass WP:NAUTHOR either. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently suggests a better notable article. Notifying PRODer DGG. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently advertising for his book -- a book which is not even in WorldCat. Checking, none of the other recent books from this publisher are in more than 4 libraries, nor have any been reviewed in any reliable publication. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pls don't Delete...reconsider Actually, Imoh David is a young author and after reading his book "The Ultimate Curse On Mankind" I tried to read more about him, but couldn't see a Wikipedia profile on him and Wikipedia being the primary source of research, so I decided to create this profile, after doing further research on him and discovered that he is a very popular atheist writer in Nigeria considering the numerous articles on religion and corruption he has published across many Nigerian online news websites. Mavin7 ( talk )

Keep Imoh David doesn't have to win a Noble Prize in Literature for his notability to be confirmed. He is already a published author and an established atheist writer. Atheism in Nigeria cannot be discussed without the mention of his name. However, for the sake of clarity, I was the first that created Wikipedia profile for him last year, not because I am an atheist like him, but because he truly merits it but it was deleted and I didn't contest it, just as I have never contested any of my article that was deleted. Reason being that, if my article is deleted, I have nothing to lose instead I see it that I have contributed my own quota in the Wikipedia project which has helped me immensely in my work. Lord Ru ( talk ) 1:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Authors don't get freebie articles on Wikipedia simply because they authored one or two non-notable books. please read WP:NAUTHOR. Wikipedia is not a blog where anything goes. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ru - if you can provide references to back up his notability, now is the time... --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak speedy no consensus IDK IMHO I need more time to think this through, who knows? maybe a source will pop up? Julie2016 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Editor Julie2016 has been blocked by a checkuserblock. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2016 (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 keep. per SK1 - As sources were found the delete !vote is moot, Thisisnotatest has managed to find & add sources, Because Blue Bus seem to go by different names I assumed what I did find was for other bus companies but maybe not.... Not being from the area I'd obviously have no idea but anywho thanks Thisisnotatest for finding & adding sources (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bus of North Lanarkshire

[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, I can't find anything at all on the company and the one source in the article is dead, Considering the company was fined in 2010 I'm surprised there's nothing on it, Anyway Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found more coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisnotatest (talk • contribs) 13:18, 4 January 2016‎ (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elmanay

[edit]

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

I can't find anything to show that this village exists. Google Web, News, Books, Maps, and Earth all show nothing. Also suspicious is the summary upon creation; "Elmanay is which about which no one knew till now." The link to this article in Shalpin was also only created today by the same user, and that is all I have been able to find about this. Adam9007 (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, nothing to suggest keeping and confirming it exists. SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. Complete failure of WP:V. Wikipedia is not for villiages someone made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 3 January 2016 (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. Roads at this level may be generally accepted as notable, but it does not follow that each and every interchange is also notable, JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Kassel-Mitte

[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 17:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. As is clear from the map in this article, this interchange is of an unusual configuration, being a four leaf clover for only a three way interchange (which suggests that it was designed to accommodate an extension of the A49 eastwards from Kassel that has never been built because of the close proximity of the former iron curtain). Bahnfrend (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its been a encyclopedic precedent that raods of this level are generally notable per WP:GNG, even if not sometimes you just gotta WP:IAR Julie2016 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Hochfranken

[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 17:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unremarkable half-stack for which no claim for notability is made. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 9 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Heidelberg

[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 17:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. The text of this article says (probably accurately) that this interchange was opened in 1937, which, if true, would make it unusually, old, even for Germany, and possibly the oldest in southern Germany. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no claim of notability. Find someone saying it is remarkably old and we can talk. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Redirect to Bundesautobahn 5 with Template:R with possibilities. Each Kreuz and Dreieck connects two Autobahns, and we have good coverage of the Autobahns. There is no policy basic to delete at AfD a topic already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. It seems that the evidence for the claims that the topic fails WP:GNG have been left as an exercise to the reader. Anyway, WP:Notability here is not a problem, as this is a massive engineering and architectural project supported by multiple layers of government and well-known to cartographers, news media, and the general public. AfDs on topics such as these need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "well-known" is not a criterion for inclusion. Roads at the federal and state/provinicial level are notable, by long-time consensus. Their intersections do not inherit notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange that fails GNG. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 9 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DATTCO

[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. References are not independent, or do not even mention company. Fails WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from a few trivial mentions in local papers, I could not find any reliable secondary sources to substantiate this company's notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DATTCO is a commuter bus service for Boston. Similar operator for New York, such as Trans-Bridge Lines and Lakeland Bus Lines, have been kept. Added independent references. --Shortride (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The existence of other articles is not relevant to this discussion - See WP:WAX. The quality of the "references" you have added does not support the article inclusion. They are only listings or mentions in schedules. They are trivial in nature. reddogsix (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this may be better notable and improvable later but I'm simply not seeing much better currently including from the listed sources. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence to suggest that this meets WP:GNG at this time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 10 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Hannover/Kirchhorst

[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. One of the Autobahns passing through this interchange is a special Autobahn providing access to the fairgrounds of the internationally important Hannover Fair (the world's biggest industrial fair), and, as such, is, amongst other things, converted to a one way route at certain times of the year. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from the parent route. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Yet again, there's no claim to notability and no general guideline to substitute for that. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as written, this fails the General Notability Guideline, as it does not display "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 13:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. nothing to suggest this rises above a normal non notable interchange. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange that fails GNG. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 9 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Hamburg-Nordwest

[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 14:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete A little more complicated than usual but again, this relies on a consensus for default notability which doesn't exist. There's no claim of notability and there seems to be no likelihood of coming up with one. Mangoe (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 9 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Hagen

[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 14:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. The Wikipedia articles about the two Autobahns linked by this interchange indicate that the interchange was built in stages, and that the planning for one of those Autobahns at and around this location underwent a number of changes while the Autobahn was being planned and built. The two German Wikipedia articles also cite a number of reliable German language sources likely to include discussion of this interchange, including a book about one of the Autobahns linked by this interchange. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no default notability for highway interchanges, and there is no claim of notability for this quite ordinary cloverleaf. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange that fails GNG. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. The fact there is a book about "one of the Autobahns linked by this interchange" is relevant to the Autobahn; the interchange does not inherit notability from its parent route. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 9 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Hannover-Buchholz

[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 14:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. One of the Autobahns passing through this interchange is a special Autobahn providing access to the fairgrounds of the internationally important Hannover Fair (the world's biggest industrial fair), and, as such, is, amongst other things, converted to a one way route at certain times of the year. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claim of notability, and there is certainly no consensus to keep these as a group. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange that fails GNG. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete interchanges are not inherently notable. This one doesn't meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky Mountain Wrestling

[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. This article consists nearly entirely of original research, the only references provided mention the subject in passing. Coverage I'm finding is largely in blogs. RadioFan (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in an hour or so I was able to put plenty of sources on this article, enough to address the wall of tags the nominator put ont he article basically minutes before putting it up for AFD (I removed them since they were addressed). So with citations the article is not "nearly entirely original research", none of the sources are blogs, some are from industry experts who have published several books etc. MPJ-US 10:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and block nominator (or demand apology) for disruptive and pointless nomination. SMW is well known as one of the most prominent independent federations of the late 20th century. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment really, "block nominator"? I'm happy to see someone has identified sources and look forward to your improvements to the article. You were able to find sources that I wasn't in Google news and book searches on the title. These produced pages of blogs with the occasional book mentioning the subject in passing. RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2016 (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 'Nomination withdrawn' LibStar (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addictive (Australian band)

[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. no notable members, no awards, no notable albums LibStar (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now actually as the listed sourcing suggests this can kept. Delete as searches at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam and also heavy metal publications Kerrang!, Blabbermouth and Kerrang! found nothing at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in MacFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also last afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MacFarlane entry + two albums: meets WP:NBAND. For previous afd see here (seven years ago), which describes band members who are notable (albeit don't have their own wp articles) by membership of two or more bands that do have articles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, all of which failed to be considered in placing this not very good AFD - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2016 (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 keep. No proper rationale, one of several disruptive nominations. Fences&Windows 20:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of New Jersey

[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes appropriate claims of notability for the state political party, with reliable and verifiable sources. The article is one 40 state Green Party organizations included across the nation in Category:Green Party of the United States by state. Alansohn (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alan Sohn. Passes WP:N with reliable sources.--TM 04:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Just because a pary carries the name "Green Party" does NOT make it inheriently notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close, and sanction the nom, who is engaged in an apparently politically motivated deletion jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable statewide political party. Article could use more sources independent of the party, but adequate to keep. (And by the way, although I know that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments carry no weight in AfD's, it is interesting to compare this article to New Jersey Libertarian Party. I wouldn't favor deleting that one either, but if one of them requires attention, it is not this one.) Neutron (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aminul Huq Moni

[edit]

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

Subject doesn't seem to have met WP:GNG. Couldn't find sources other than a news piece and a primary source about his death. —UY Scuti ^Talk 04:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be rewritten completely but looks like he was secretary of BCB which is significant enough, IMO. Tintin 04:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as General Secretary of the Bangladesh Cricket Board and later Director of BCB during 2009 - 2012 and chaired the Local Game Development committee. I removed some fanboy stuff from the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a keep now. Tintin 17:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for keep. In my opinion, he was definitely significant enough as a user above stated. 21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aedhmar Hynes

[edit]

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

I was consulting with Oshwah who felt this subject may actually be notable so here I am nominating at AfD instead of PROD which I originally thought of. My searches simply found nothing better than a few PR publications at News and browsers using "Aedhmar Hynes Top 100 Global Public Relations". SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG. The only sources I found that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V are here and here, but they do not cover the person in-depth. They cover the company that she has a position with; the sources just interview her as part of their intended subject. There is no significant coverage on this person, and there isn't anything I can find that discuss the article subject in-depth. Hence, the article fails WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any reliable source other than passing and PR type mentions. Nothing really in her own right. ww2censor (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Can't find any in-depth coverage of this individual to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous comments. Safiel (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Hamburg-Südost

[edit]

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 17:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a road interchange. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A standard trumpet interchange that fails GNG; named interchanges in Germany are commonplace and have no special presumption of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 10 January 2016 (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 Miss Earth Guam#Titleholders. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 00:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Santos

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT (just a preliminary round and the main event of the same cycle) The Banner talk 13:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and part of minor event that fails WP:EVENT. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Earth Guam.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Earth Guam#Titleholders as a plausible, reasonable and cheap redirect for a personage who fails WP:BLP1E. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Official Hot Mess (O.H.M)

[edit]

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

I believe the band is non-notable and doesn't meet WP:BAND crtieria. Plus, there are several issues with the article's name, structure and sourcing. JAEVI (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this suggests a better article and my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't verify "top of the hits record chart in Asia, Australia and parts of Europe". No sourcing on notability of any songs/albums that would meet NSONG/ALBUM. They are also known as 2Girlz, which is not mentioned in the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Woman

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable film. No reliable sources referenced, and I was unable to find any on a cursory search. Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Lithorien (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3–minute short. Searches show facebook posts and film festival screenings. Does not pass WP:GNG/WP:NFILM (note: no relation to nominator).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While length is not a determining factor (see Bambi Meets Godzilla which is only two minutes long but is a considered one of The 50 Greatest Cartoons) the fact that there is so little WP:SECONDARY info about it means that it does not meet WP:NFILM at this time. Should that ever change the article can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 04:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even the page on the Internet Movie Database is a stub-entry with very limited information and a lack of commentary. Not exactly a good sign for the availability of sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

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

title in Afghanistan's Dari Persian:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crasharama

[edit]

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

Searches with "Crasharama motorsport tour" only found a few expected local passing mentions at Books, News and browsers but certainly not anything to suggest even a minimally better notable article. Notifying taggers Logical Fuzz and Neutrality. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, the hits on News don't appear to be about the Crasharama in this article, which is about a supposed event series in the US, while those mentions are all for different countries. Nothing on Newspapers or Highbeam, a couple of trivial mentions on books, and shockingly, nothing on Scholar. Clearly fails WP:GNG, and is currently unsourced (except to a link which brings up an unfinished website for something called "Tours of Destruction"). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant, independent, third-party coverage indicating that event is notable. Neutrality^talk 01:37, 4 January 2016 (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. Will move to Robert Jacobson leaving a redirect. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jacobson (Catholic convert)

[edit]

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

Subject is only mentioned in passing (i.e., trivially) in the sources given. No in depth coverage. Nominating for deletion as a non-notable individual. KDS4444^Talk 08:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tend to agree. Nothing remarkable about being a priest, being a convert, or having written a book. Deb (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Jacobson is a proeminent Roman Catholic convert from Lutheranism. A former Lutheran clergymen, intelectual and with a past inside Lutheranism, showing his discordance against liberal thoughts as gay marriage and abortion, accepted by many Lutheran denominations. As a married priest, inside Latin Rite, show his importance to discuss some themes inside Roman Catholic discipline. Roltz (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is all well and good, but can you provide some sources that indicate that he has been the subject of news articles with a broad public interest (i.e., not just the Catholic press) in which he is the subject of the article (not just mentioned in passing)? That is what this article needs to be retained, and so far it doesn't seem to have it. KDS4444^Talk 04:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note That his role as a Lutheran Bishop was covered in major newspapers, HOWEVER, Joseph R. Jacobson used the name Robert when he was a Lutheran, and goes by Joseph as a Catholic, making it unlikely that nom would have found those sources. Nom was perhaps also unaware that being a Bishop of an major church is like being elected to the legislative body of a major polity, ie., it makes you notable by definition.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:KDS4444, Hi. You may have missed the mention in the article of the earlier part of his career, as a Lutheran Bishop. Not your ordinary Catholic convert. I saw that and figured he had got to be notable, but I had a dickens of a time sourcing him until I realized that he had changed the given name he uses at conversion (switched form what seems to have been his middle name - Robert - to his first name, although I did not find a source on which name was on his birth & Christening certificates, only enough to make it certain that the name change took place. Also, perhaps you are not familiar with WP:BISHOPS, but the Presidents, Moderaters and so forth of major Protestant churches, along with bishops of Eastern rite churches, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican churches are presumed notable (bishops of small/new denominations recently founded by new/small as yet non-notable denominations are not, unless coverage passes GNG, of course). Also note that a Catholic paper can be just as notable as a a secular paper, it depends on the paper. The major problem her, of course, is his name. If you run a news search on a good engine (I used Proquest) and look at the 80s and 90s you will find ample coverage of his career and policy moves as Bishop. Best, E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a Bishop of a major denomination Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada he is automatically notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: This is all rather interesting. Let me mention this: I have always struggled with the "automatically notable" presumption given in many of the subject-specific Wikipedia notability guidelines— these guidelines were written to help editors quickly assess whether or not a given subject is likely to be notable, not a carte blanche on their notability which, if questioned, must still actually be proven through the presence of multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the subject non-trivially. Instead, they seem to have devolved into the latter rather than remained the former— this particular article may be a case in point. What are your thoughts on that? KDS4444^Talk 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find them useful because they are an efficient way to guide us not to delete articles on people who are virtually certain to be sourceable. Jacobson is a good case in point. Although sourcing in the the article was paltry, it turns out that keeping as per that guideline would have been the correct decision. What I couldn't figure out at first was why a Lutheran Bishop was not coming up on my early searches. I kept looking because it had to be either that the article was wrong and he wasn't a bishop, or that something else - like spelling - was wrong. once I got the right name a proquest newspaper archives search on: bishop + robert + jacobson + Lutheran pulled p substantive coverage. Since he was bishop of Alberta, it was largely in the Edmonton Journal, naturally, but also in other major Canadian dailies. And I am sure that there is more in Lutheran papers and elsewhere, including books covering the issues he was involved with, including women's ordination and Lutheran-Catholic relations. WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES makes it easy to avoid making a mistake like deleting this article, when all it needs is an editor willing to improve it. Goven the dearth of editors with the resources (access to for-pay search engines) and will to look for sources that might establish that articles at AFD pass GNG, I find such guidelines useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a mess, but as Lutheran Bishop of Alberta and the Territories for 10 years he had impact and coverage, plus the coverage associated with a Lutheran Bishop becoming a Catholic priest.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan bishop of a major denomination. Rename to Robert Jacobson, his name as a bishop. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oussama Belhcen

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Autobiography of a non-notable musician. He himself describes Larache, the principle source of his references as local press. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete altogether as I reviewed this before LaMona actually accepted it and it was drafted from the 1st AfD. I say delete because unless it can be better improved later, none of this suggests keeping again. My searches also found nothing better and the listed coverage is not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other findings. Too soon. Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not an Autobiography and there are different sources not only the local press Larache24, there is excepmag.com, panet.co.il (ISR), tinjah.org, laracheinfo.com, alwatanvoice.com (PSE), monblad.com, larachecity.com, laracheinfo.com, radiochabab.ma, souss24.com, maroc-press.com. Othmanebenjelloun (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the Talk page that has now been restored, in this edit you wrote "I'm Oussama Belhcen who used to be a singer, last year I stopped singing because of many things, please delete this page" (emphasis added). That seems to meet a definition of autobiographical? AllyD (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict): This is part of a longstanding walled garden of articles, parts of which were deleted around 6 months ago ([18], [19]). There was also some interchange between the article of this name and the former "Ryan Behlsen" article ([20]) as the subject had first curtailed then decided to restart his efforts in the music industry under another name. From memory, various discussions were on the former version of Talk:Oussama Belhcen, including the subject requesting deletion, so it is a pity that it was not reinstated to assist with the present AfD. My view is that notability has never been reliably established under this or the former working name. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 3 January 2016 (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. Article now expanded and sourced (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Princess Mouse: A Tale of Finland

[edit]

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

stub. No evidence of notability. Elvey^(t•c) 16:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches unfortunately found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, entering "The Princess Mouse: A Tale of Finland reviews" in google brings back on 1st 10 pages a review from Publishers Weekly - [21] one from Inis Magazine of Children's Books Ireland [22], and a listing from EBSCO [23] showing additional reviews from the School Librarian, School Library Journal, Booklist, and Kirkus Reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added the above reviews to the article, plus here is another one (also added) from The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books - [24]. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep - sourcing indicates a clear keep per Coolabahapple, Sadads (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced article on a notable book, though I am a bit concerned that there is no mention of the book's topic in the article. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama and the Enemies Within

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK -- haminoon (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Yann (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why do the Glen Beck interview and the New American review cited by the article not satisfy the first notability criterion of WP:NBOOK? I could not find any other reliable secondary sources to substantiate the notability of this book, but I want to make sure my vote conforms to relevant notability guidelines. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Glenn Beck piece appears to be just some web video. There's no indication it was on television or part of a network. Its unlikely the book is independent from the Beck enterprise. The New American skirts the reliability requirement. -- haminoon (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck is perfectly legitimate, Barack Obama and the Enemies Within was the subject of one of his programs, the author has made several appearances on Beck's show (radio and television) and the book is completely separate from Beck. Not sure what you mean about the New American "skirting" the reliability requirement. 173.23.225.52 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing these sources, I have concluded that the review in The New American is a reliable, albeit biased source. However, WP:BIASED explains that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". The Glen Beck interview, on the other hand, fails to satisfy WP:NBOOK's "non-trivial" requirement because it was broadcast on Glenn Beck's self-published website (note the "GBTV" icon on the bottom of the screen). Footnote 2 in the first criterion of WP:NBOOK explains that "'[n]on-trivial' excludes personal websites". ~~Therefore, unless there are other non-trivial reviews I haven't seen, I think deletion is appropriate.~~ -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I would like to disagree that TheBlaze is a "personal website." TheBlaze (GBTV as well as many other programs are a part of TheBlaze) is founded by Glenn Beck, but "is an independent news and entertainment television network." See other shows here: ^[1] ReneeNal (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.video.theblaze.com/schedule/index.jsp

Follow-up comment: I know that I keep flip-flopping here, but upon further consideration, I think the New American source and the Glen Beck interview can satisfy the "multiple sources" criteria of WP:GNG. I therefore change my vote to very weak keep. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the Notability guidelines, "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." The book is the subject of a Glenn Beck show and a review at the New American as noted on the page. ReneeNal (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Updated the page to add reviews by American writer David Menefee of Bookpleasures.com and Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily.ReneeNal (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source in most circumstances (though its fine to be in this article). Bookpleasures.com charges authors / publishers for reviews and probably shouldn't be in the article. I'll concur with the more thorough Notecardforfree that the New American is reliable enough for this purpose. The Blaze is still essentially self-published. -- haminoon (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that on Bookpleasures; removed per your advice. I believe that calling the Glenn Beck program "self published" is a bit of a stretch (to put it mildly), but I am open to other opinions. ReneeNal (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft and userfy if needed as there's simply not enough article for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glen Beck is clearly notable and well followed, regardless of which medium he uses. Oprah is self published by similar criteria for she owns her media shows too. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Self-published does not equal non-notable, and the book seems to have enough coverage by third-party sources. Though Legacypac, I should point that the notability of Glen Beck has very little to do with the notability of his topics. He is just another source. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; additionally, the article is written as if the book were undoubtable fact. It says the book is "notable for exposing the radical ties" without presenting any other viewpoints and as though those radical ties were a foregone conclusion. Generally, there are no unbiased reports about the book. Smith(talk) 13:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the bias in any given source is no reason to remove it. Per our policy on Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of the sources provided exceed the minimum standards of WP:NBOOK. Issues of potential bias have already been addressed through the advanced technique of "editing" the article to deal with the problem. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a BLP article as it is very much about Obama. We shouldn't use sources such as WorldNetDaily. I've removed it as a BLP violation. If anyone disagrees, please ask at BLPN first. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable book. A YouTube video that has not been "broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party" should not be used as a reliable source, and The New American is basically a published blog with a tiny, insignificant circulation (called a "trivial work" at WP:NBOOK). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am mystified that people would claim that there are sources which allow this subject to pass WP:BK. There are not. Glenn Beck and the John Birch Society are not the kinds of serious, reliable, independent sources we require when establishing notability for books. The lack of circulation, mainstream reviews, or even notice in the normal world is just the nail in the coffin. jps (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress which makes a strong argument for deleting this parallel article. jps (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that these sources are not sufficient. In no way are they independent and if we allowed articles to stand because of sources like these we would be setting a precedent that allows any 2 of such sources to establish notability for anything they wish to write about. We need independent sources, not sources which are in a sense "clones". Doug Weller talk 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about whether a source is notable if it is perceived to be "biased." The notability guidelines on that are clear that . People may not like Glenn Beck or New American, but "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".ReneeNal (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC) - — ReneeNal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It's not a matter of bias. The problem here is that the Glenn Beck YouTube video has not been "broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party", so it isn't a reliable source. Moreover, The New American has a minuscule circulation and doesn't pass the "trivial" test at WP:NBOOK; therefore, this is an article without any recognizable reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To establish notability, you must establish that the sources are independent of the fringe theory being promoted. Read WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of its political position, it doesn't pass WP:BK and lacks the independent and non-trivial reliable sources needed to establish notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. There has been no demonstration of notability. A fellow conspiracy theory promoter like Beck, who is not even in the business of reviewing books, cannot reasonably be a reliable source to establish the notability of a book. The same goes for the New American piece which, rather than being a reliable, objective, third party book review, looks to be merely a fringe source that actually takes this conspiracy theory stuff seriously. If one fringe theorist talking about another fringe theorist's writings conferred notability, then every hare brained, self-published political attack book, blog, and pamphlet would get its own article, and Wikipedia would be in the inadvertent business of promoting them beyond anybody's interest in the subject. If this book had any notability there would be multiple reviews by other disinterested reviewers. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBOOK, Wikidemon, and the AfD on another Loudon book in what appears to be a series. Graham (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd asked at WP:RS/N about whether or not New American was usable as a source. The result of that discussion and other discussions (here, here, here) This discussion has stated that New American can only really be used as a source when it comes to the John Birch Society. It can be used to back up basic data and claims by the society, but it can't really be used as a reliable source to show notability for something. I don't have an opinion just yet on the Beck review, but offhand I'd say that this is probably usable for notability purposes but I'd have to research this on RS/N a little bit first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread at RS/N about whether or not the Beck appearance should be considered a RS or not. The YT vid is a little iffy, but the book is a central part of the discussion. Although the discussion is general at times, the conversation does appear to keep coming back to the book, which would make it a central enough focus for it to be considered in-depth. Now the question here is whether or not a Beck appearance can be considered a notability giving RS. That's still up in the air, although I'm somewhat leaning towards it being usable as a source in this regard. I do need to note though, that if this is considered to be a notability giving source, that's still only one source and that's not enough to pass NBOOK. The NA isn't usable as a notability-giving RS on Wikipedia. I did check to see if it's frequently used as a RS in places like books and academic articles, but all I could find was this book, published by TheBlaze's publishing arm, Mercury Ink. Offhand I'm leaning towards redirecting this to the author's article unless I can find more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per my comments above. I tried searching for sources using Google, Bing, Highbeam, Google Scholar, and two colleges' academic databases. There's just not really anything out there. The New American is considered to not be usable as a reliable source on here except when it's talking about the JBS and even then it can't be used as a notability giving source. The Beck source is questionable as far as RS goes and even if it's ultimately usable as a RS, that's not enough in and of itself to establish notability. Now here's what I propose: that the basic data here be summarized and placed in Loudon's article as a subsection. He's only released two books, neither of which have gained much coverage outside of the usual fringe websites. It's frustrating since the books do seem to be popular, but none of that popularity has translated into these books gaining substantial coverage in places that would be considered reliable on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published drivel which has achieved precisely no provable mainstream attention. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is an underlying reason for our notability guidelines, namely that we need enough sources to write a useful article on the book. If all sources are highly partisan or fringe non-RSes, we cannot do that and hence should not have an article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither New American nor a YouTube video pass WP:RS; there simply aren't enough reliable sources to pass WP:NBOOK or to write a useful article. The implication (as some have made above) that Glenn Beck is so credible that a self-published YouTube video automatically passes WP:RS is silly; reliability requires editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A talking head who publishes their column in a reputable paper passes WP:RS; but when they turn around and put a video on YouTube, that unequivocally fails our criteria. --Aquillion (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If mainstream sources ignore it, it lacks notability. And anyway we cannot write an accurate article about a book containing outrageous claims without reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author article. Self-published tripe whose title has become a plausible search term after it was touted by a well-known buffoon. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all of two sources and one is Glenn Beck? Nope. Artw (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hamilton

[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 23:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning toward keep. She's not super-notable, but I found a two solid articles: [25] from Rock Paper Shotgun and [26] from Polygon. Also, there's this review from Just Adventure which covers her voice acting. I'm still searching for further reviews that mention her by name, but I think I can find them, as her voice acting seems to have been well-received. There are also some scattered hits from a fundraising request when she got cancer, but I don't think that counts toward notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a few more articles. She's mainly mentioned in gaming publications, but seems to have a fair bit of notability in the gaming community. Fuzchia (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article demands further revision, expansion, and referencing. Arashtitan 20:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Longest Journey as a compromise as I also found some of the listed sources above from NinjaRobotPirate but none of it seems to fully satisfy a better acceptable article and it seems she's simply best known for the voicing that one character. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with acceptable references, this person meets the notability requirements. Bfpage |leave a message 01:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable voice actress and the article has enough external links to allow room for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2016 (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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obiwu

[edit]

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

~~Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find that evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)~~ Nomination Withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete per WP:GNG. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article should no longer be deleted as it has been updated with new information and linked to related pages. 1buRi6hw4n (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — 1buRi6hw4n (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as my searches only found a few links here and there at Books, News and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is rich in offline sources and links. Suggest areas of improvement, if necessary.Anombano (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC) — Anombano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep. The article is heavily larded with Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, sources that don't mention the subject, sources by rather than about the subject, or sources that mention him only trivially. But the Akubuiro piece (repeated as references 3, 19) is an in-depth profile of the subject that appears to be reliably published, and the News Ghana piece (reference 12) is an in-depth review of a book of his poetry. That may be enough for WP:GNG if not for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a notable person demonstrated by the secondary sources. I checked out a sample of the references. An article on this man would improve the encyclopedia. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a relatively minor writer and scholar, this seems to have decent sourcing. He meets criteria for notability. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2016 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FFX Yamaha

[edit]

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

I'm not sure about the notability of a cycling team that raced for half a year in the league. One of the sources isn't particularly reliable but I'm not seeing more than justifies a separate page (WP:NOPAGE to speak) rather than it existing as a redirect to 2014_British_Superbike_Championship_season#Entry_list. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I waited until commenting to see what others said but this simply seems questionably notable so delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, not notable, and with no impact or legacy. Frankly, I believe we have deleted or merged Pokémon with more evidence on notability. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable 1 season team Seasider91 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2016 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orgment

[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable source coverage of this company. Sam Walton (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:17, 20 December 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 December 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly would've speedied and or PRODed this as this is exactly the material I've been searching for to nominate for deletion either speedy, PROD or AfD. Searches found nothing at all which is not surprising. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get zero hits in Google and news, which is pretty amazing. The references here are to related topics (e.g. "digital") but are not about the company itself. LaMona (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the lack of third-party sources and no particular coverage coming up in a google search, I would suspect this is a hoax article. Are we even sure this company exists? Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2016 (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 List of Digimon Adventure characters#MetalSeadramon. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seadramon

[edit]

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

Not Notable. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable. No reliable sources. Probably should be speedily deleted. Meatsgains (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, nothing to suggest notability from this current article. SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the editor begins to make improvements. It looks like a test edit. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 01:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is clearly an unsourced stub, but the topic might not be inherently non-notable. A google search reveals quite a few mentions in Digimon-related websites. Do we have a list that can cover it, other than List of Digimon Adventure characters? Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Digimon Adventure characters#MetalSeadramon as a plausible (and cheap!) redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 9 January 2016 (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. Uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-Tex PRO

[edit]

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

I can only find press releases or regurgitated press releases about this company/product. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, not yet a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources, blatantly spammy and probably a copyvio from a company brochure. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 01:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only external links seem to be pages of the PPSS Group, a British company which tries to market this fabric as an improved alternative to Kevlar. The topic might be notable, but the lack of third-party sources certainly raises a red flag. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2016 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Andy

[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person with no particularly strong claim of notability that would cleanly pass any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion standards for people. Of the four sources here, one is a self-published résumé on a primary source, while two are to local community media outlets that would be valid for supplementary confirmation of facts after an article had already been sourced over GNG, but aren't widely distributed enough to count toward GNG. Which leaves only one source that's fully satisfactory — but one good source can't carry GNG alone if it's not actually supporting anything that would pass an SNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not enough coverage for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find anything I would consider to be a wp:RS. LaMona (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I am also not convinced of his notability, this glorified resume indicates that this actor has been inactive since 2003. This suggests that it is unlikely to find recent third-party sources. The only connection that even remotely indicates notability to me is his several years of association with Fangoria, though I am far from certain that the magazine's notability means its staff and associates are also notable. Dimadick (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2016 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karbala Ta Karbala

[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The poet in question is known for his work known as "Shehr-e-Hawas". this non notable work is not even his best work(according to sources). FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not inherently opposed to stand-alone articles for poetry works, but this one is a Marsiya. This entire sub-genre of poems is about lamenting the death of Husayn ibn Ali at the Battle of Karbala (680). Writing within a well-worn genre is not enough to guarantee notability. This article provides no evidence that this poem is different than all the others or has some special importance and coverage. Dimadick (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2016 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GDays

[edit]

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

Promotional article with no evidence of notability. It fails WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there exists an article related to Google sponsored events like these, I suppose it could be redirected to that, but I don't think there is, so let's settle on a delete for failing notability. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest better notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been an orphaned article since 2014, and there is no indication the event had any lasting impact. Dimadick (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2016 (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of population milestones by country

[edit]

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

Useless, incomplete, very low page demand. EnigmaLord515 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic seems interesting but the page is incomplete and the article is not well-cited. Arashtitan talk 16:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly interesting, but seems to be original research. Every way of formatting and presenting information is not what an encyclopedia is all about. Borock (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's hardly much of an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic seems notable, but this article is an unsourced stub. If we can't find available sources on historical demography, this is never going to improve. Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article topic itself (and how the whole article is structured) is a hopeless case of WP:OR. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Healthful Indian Flavors with Alamelu

[edit]

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

over detailed article on local program, which is syndicated only on a minor auxiliary channel. Zero third party references DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The programme is, in fact, broadcast throughout the United States on the PBS network, as I have already explained in my edit summary yesterday when I reverted the original nomination. PBS is not a "minor auxiliary channel" but a major national American network. What is an "auxiliary" channel, anyway? And will the nominator please explain how he thinks the article is "too long", as he stated yesterday, or "too detailed" as he claims today? It is not, in fact, a long article, and contains not much detail. There are many much longer and more detailed articles about other programmes. And who decides how long an article about a television programme should be? How long is a piece of string? And if a consensus arises that it is, in fact, too long, will the nominator propose what should be elided? Deletion is not necessary if only pruning is, though I don't believe any is required. There is only a brief description of the programme and of the host, one paragraph each, and a standard list of episodes. What could possibly be removed without damaging the article unnecessarily to fulfil an arbitrary opinion about length? And there certainly are third party references; look again more carefully. — O'Dea (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there appears to be significant coverage, for example through the News link above. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect that when DGG speaks of an auxiliary channel, he/she means Create (TV network) which actually broadcasts this show. The few sources currently on the article suggest that presenter Alamelu Vairavan is notable by Wikipedia standards, not that the show itself gets significant coverage. Otherwise this is a common stub. Dimadick (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -a quick Google search shows that the show is broadcast through PBS outside of a single region/area, which covers WP:TVSERIES notability criteria: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience." Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2016 (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 deleted by RHaworth, CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale Super Football League

[edit]

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

Non-notable local league - clearly fails WP:GNG. Possible speedy deletion candidate as it seems to relate to this? J Mo 101 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication this league meets GNG. I note that the creator of the article seems to have copied headers and maintenance templates from other articles as they are dated in 2012 and 2013 even though the article was created on 18 December 2015. If an admin can determine that this is fundamentally the same article as Rochdale Super League, then I would also recommend adding some SALT. I'm !voting here in case my WP:A7 tag is declined. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be the same article as the one that has been deleted on numerous occasions. Still no improvement and fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 11:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this article entirely unsourced and not notable. Their chosen sport is five-a-side football, a football variant with no significant fan following. If we can't even get a fan-site to check the facts of the article, much less a reliable source, this is an open invitation for original research and vandalism. Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2016 (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 without prejudice against a move to User or Draft space and a subsequent rewrite. Though any rewritten article would, of course, have to demonstrate notability through independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

North Texas Film Critics Association

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Aside from the fact we already have three Texas film-critics associations — for Austin, Dallas–Fort Worth, and Houston — this group is composed of just eight individuals writing primarily for non-notable websites and in at least two cases a personal blog. (See list at right here.) Additionally, it's based in Dallas, so the individuals and/or their outlets are so non-notable that the Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association doesn't accept them.

As with other small, regional film-critics groups that already have been deleted for non-notability, virtually all the citations in this article are from places simply announcing the group's year-end list. There are no third-party citations about the group itself — and at least one citation is to one of its members' own blogs! This seems one more case of film buffs who in some if not most cases here are nonprofessional critics and essentially just movie fans writing for free. Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have previously suggested a possible criterion: awards ceremonies where the nominees are not present, where the winners might not even accept any award, are not likely to be notable. Anyhow, the material is just what the organization's website should post. I don't know whether all the sources can be completely dismissed, but I notice the 2012 Indiewire source is merely a recitation of the awards named. Best recorded at their website; non-encyclopedic. --do ncr am 04:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organization, with no apparent impact on the film industry. I am not sure about notability of the members, as most film critics are non-notable regardless of their writing on blogs or respected newspapers. Dimadick (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify I agree with nom, this is simply a list of the films they've voted and gives nothing more (actually less) than their own web site. For this to be an article there would need to be more about the organization. More can be found, although it is thin: this. There is also evidence that the group is taken seriously by professionals this. So remove the lists of winners, leaving only the lead, add a stub tag, and see if the article can be expanded as an actual encyclopedia article. LaMona (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The link showing "evidence that the group is taken seriously by professionals" [27] really does not: It just lists the group's "Best Documentary" award within a huge laundry list of awards and nominations — including by the Indiana and Utah film-critic groups, which have been found to be non-notable and had their Wikipedia articles deleted. That's just a promotional page for a documentary, so it includes every single award it can, no matter how trivial--Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and & draft and userfy for now as there may not be a better solidly notable article here yet. Notifying past content contributor Dravecky. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional election

[edit]

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

This article's entirely unreferenced content seems to be more like an OR religious discourse than an article about an established concept. The related article, Unconditional election, seems similarly flawed. [28] seems to indicate it is a minor ongoing issue of debate amongst certain American Protestant churches, but it is without any real scholarly sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: That the article is unreferenced/problematic means that it needs to be tagged and improved, not that it warrants deletion. WP:BEFORE applies here, since a trivial search on GoogleBooks, etc, easily shows that it is an longstanding and important concept in Arminianism (vs Calvinism), and there are sufficient contextual examples on wikipedia. Given its relation to Unconditional Election, the two might be better merged as Election (theology), but that'd require expert attention. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 03:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the concept might be historically important re Arminianism, the terminology itself seems modern - it seems to be a modern term used by American Churches. I have doubts that it is important enough to have a stand alone article. But merging the two as suggested could work and perhaps get it away from a reliance on religious tracts produced by minor American Christian educational institutions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest source on GBooks mentioning conditional election is dated 1681 from England and contains a Bill from 1638 presented to and responded to by Charles I. This was the year before the Bishops' Wars, and the complaint was against David Lindsay (bishop of Edinburgh). Note that no explanation of "conditional election" was deemed necessary to be given. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 02:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I stand corrected on the early usage. But Election should be capitalized, I think, like Elect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hydronium: exactly. – Fayenatic London 08:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly an established concept. Like a number of theological articles, it suffers from an OR Scripture section, but that of course is no reason to delete the article. GBooks gives thousands of hits for the phrase, the first page being almost entirely significant mentions. St Anselm (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield. This is a non-notable Fringe theory that never references which 17th-century religious author (or crackpot) came up with the idea. Then the entire article spends time looking for the possibly non-existent scriptural evidence for the theory, rather than what human writers and expert scholars have commented on it. The article on Arminianism itself lacks coverage of its historical context and evolution. The article on unconditional election is also in poor shape, but at least attributes the concept to Augustine of Hippo and briefly mentions Augustine's influence on the Protestant Reformation. Dimadick (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to create Election (theology) as suggested by User:Hydronium Hydroxide. And tag for improvement. This is an historically and theologically significant concept, which merits a good article. It is NOT a Fringe theory, it is, or was, a major theological concept that has ceased to be a prominent part of contemporary theological discourse. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Election (theology) should redirect to Election (Christianity). Unconditional election has it own notability as one of the Five points of Calvinism. St Anselm (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a theological concept about becoming one of the Elect (which also redirects to Election (Christianity)) would it not be better for both the conditional and unconditional election articles be merged into Election (Christianity))? Would not what is now an obscure subject be better understood that way? That, and rewriting the 17th-century-speak of the believer: stuff like ""Unconditional election" asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself"! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounded reasonable, until I clicked on Election (Christianity). Article is worse than this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2016 (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.