< 4 January	6 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius & Clay[edit]

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

This is an article about a TV series pilot which was not picked up to series. See this news: "No additional episodes were produced beyond the pilot." Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another "wait until it's announced to air" premature pilot article and a reminder again that unless it's announced for a schedule, don't create an article for the show. Nate • (chatter) 03:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the article was probably created a bit too soon. I'm open to a redirect if someone can suggest something relevant. But all we have right now, as far as I can tell, is announcements for a show that did not get picked up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom – Wikipedia should not be in the business of articles on failed pilots in all but the most exceptional cases. This one doesn't qualify as the latter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This did not make it to air to my understanding and doesn't meet the adequate needs to be on WP. --Lit1979 (contribs • talk) 23:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — Lit1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Administrator note - Lit1979 started editing yesterday and went straight for AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oak House[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Notability, could not find a reliable source showing any notability for this hall of residence Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Curro2 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect. Student accommodation. No assertion of notability in the article, no RS. Szzuk (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for own article.. I am planning to propose a merge of several articles into the Fallowfield Campus article.. Any help would be appreciated - User:Staceydolxx/Fallowfield Campus ツStacey (talk) 13:29, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devspot CMS[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 23:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here suggest a better notable article. Notifying tagger BC108. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 00:24, 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 Keep and I was going to close this as such earlier but I wasn't sure if it was clear enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Mitchell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No indication of importance nor wide citations by peers or successors. No new concepts, theories or techniques promoted. No significant or well known bodies of work (one book with little success at best) and no significant and substantive coverage otherwise - two single publication appearances (Newsweek and LA Magazine) do not constitute significant coverage. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article provides sufficient evidence of notability (I doubt that WP:AUTHOR is the right criterion). Maproom (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly indicates that it's about a writer. Hence the criteria I used. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says "he writes as a hobby". That is not what he's notable for. Maproom (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only option. He's not notable for anything else. KrazyKlimber (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in several major sources; also cited in several books on the subject [1]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notable cites from peers - except for Temple Grandin but only a name check and nothing more. KrazyKlimber (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no question that Jonathan Mitchell is notable. The article currently cites six independent sources that establish his notability. There are undoubtedly more (e.g., [2]). CatPath (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Six?? There are only two that I can see (LA Magazine and Newsweek) and that is not enough to confer notability IMO. KrazyKlimber (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm including the NPR and Studio 360 interviews, Andrew Solomon's article in New York Magazine, and the book Autism and Representation. That's six total. If you want more, he's mentioned in the article from Australia linked above in my initial comments, chapter 6 in the book The Politics of Autism, and chapter 3 of the book Republic of Outsiders. (To confirm, you can find those books on Amazon, click on the "Look Inside" link, and search for Mitchell's name.) We're now up to nine independent sources. CatPath (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two interviews are not notable. NYMag is a name check. I'll have to look at the other one. The others are namechecks as well. You still haven't convinced me. He's actually closer to being notable for being a nuisance to the autistic community than anything else but even then he fails the test. All you're doing is presenting (IMO) local newspaper sources if you like. Where are the sources that detail him in the real mainstream beyond the two that I've already accepted? KrazyKlimber (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Newsweek and NPR references are significant coverage and both are reliable sources. This passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR does not even apply. I am also forced to point out the edit war and WP:POINT disruption here. There is a discussion at the COI noticeboard that talks about this more. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The guy passes GNG and BLP given the good coverage. The article also appears to already be de-fringed, but a bit more may be in order. Delta13C (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG, this looks like a case of IDONTLIKEIT. Jacona (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not clearly pass GNG, the only two articles from WP:RS are little more than fluff pieces. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The cases presented above to keep seem to all check out. Lit1979 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep How exactly does significant coverage in three major publications (Newsweek, LA Magazine, NPR) not constitute WP:BIO notability? WP:IDONTLIKEIT appears to be the operative link here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:19, 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.

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 JzG per G11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Siderski[edit]

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

Not a notable person. JDDJS (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable -- fails WP:N, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 22:45, 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. Sandstein 08:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical place names in Khorasan[edit]

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

Multiple problems. The only readable portions of this article are those that are cribbed from other wikipedia articles (itself not a crime) like that of the history of Greater Khorasan.

The rest is indecipherable nonsense. It is not evident what is being claimed or how. It merely itemizes long lists of toponyms without a claim on whether it is a Biblical reference or a current or recorded Khorasan place, or presents Old Testament quotes without context, etc etc.

Looking at the article's historical contributors it would suggest COI (or at least absense of neutrality) isn't unlikely. Even the four "images" are different iterations of the same map three times and one with a strongly non-NPOV caption (replete with typographical as well as logical errors).

And while there certainly are "sources" here, they are hardly all GSs or actually establish the claim of the article as anything other than a fringe element. It is almost all editorializing, speculation and synthesis at best, and OR at that.

WP:TNT. JesseRafe (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged for deletion. The note said: "article should have high quality evidence".

This article shows names of places in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Afghanistan + Pakistan = Khurasan; old name). The names of these places were not assigned in recent or even modern history. These are actual place names. Look them all up on google maps or any other extensive atlas. The names are provided with reference from various books (This also includes the bible since the title includes the word). It requires editing and corrections but it is original research and referenced material. Consider that the region is not Europe where you can find cemetery records from the 10th century. I request a Pakistani or Afghan based editor to have some say in the matter as well otherwise you'll have an encyclopedia without much about this region. As to the point of the article, it is related to the Afghan (Pashtun/ Pukhtun) decent from Bani Israelis. Like it or not there is extensive material on the subject which cannot be out rightly rejected. This article shows what it says. There are places in the region with place names before recorded history which are also found in the bible. It requires improvement not deletion. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article could be merged with Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites. Despite what the page's creator (above) says, this article does not establish a single thing he claims it does, and if the "extensive material on the subject exists" it is not here. JesseRafe (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as synthesis and original research. Most of it is unsourced and for that which is sourced, the Grant R. Jeffrey one is WP:Fringe Christian fundamentalist conspiracy theory and thus inadmissible, and the other sources seem to have nothing directly to do with the article's title but are there to support the synthesis. If there is sourced evidence for ancient Jewish settlements in this region, or for some of the place names being mentioned in the bible, as the Jewish Quarterly Review source suggests, surely there are more appropriate existing articles that could contain such content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:16, 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 per WP:SNOW. I'm closing this one a little early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Adventures[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. The article was created by one of the authors. reddogsix (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and promotional. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this page because this is a real existing book series and we have sold 2 copies and this is the way the world can know about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youtube0117 (talk • contribs)
Delete - I can find no independent coverage at all. Absolutely no chance this meets WP:GNG. Article appears to be entirely promotionally motivated, and there's a clear conflict of interest with the article's author being the book's author. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely notable. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Barrett (Boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NBOX. --Donniediamond (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete he is a champion boxer and deserves a place on wiki, some footballers get a page with out even playing a match! Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.10.170 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 6 January 2016‎

Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOX. Quis separabit? 18:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning an English regional title is not enough to meet WP:NBOX and I didn't find the significant independent coverage of him to show he meets WP:GNG. The coverage I did find was routine sports reporting--fight results and announcements. Papaursa (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not fought for a world title; has not fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title; has not ranked in the world top ten of any weight class; and hasn't fought for a national amateur title. Fails WP:NBOX. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:21, 13 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. Sandstein 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Oahu Interscholastic Association Football Season[edit]

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

There is almost surely a lack of notability on these subjects, notability that would warrant a stand-alone article for a single season of a single high school football conference's play or articles for single, high school state championship games, or single seasons of play for a particular high school football team. I seriously doubt the coverage goes beyond local here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting categories and templates related to these articles that should be deleted if this AfD is successful:

Category:HHSAA State Champions
Template:HHSAA State Football Championships navbox
Template:2011 OIA Football Standings
Template:2012 OIA Football Standings
Template:2013 OIA Football Standings
Template:2012 BIIF Football Standings
Template:2011 BIIF Football Standings
Template:2011 ILH Football Standings
Template:2011 KIF Football Standings
Template:2011 MIL Football Standings
Template:2012 BIIF Football Standings
Template:2012 ILH Football Standings
Template:2012 KIF Football Standings
Template:2012 MIL Football Standings
Template:2013 BIIF Football Standings
Template:2013 ILH Football Standings
Template:2013 KIF Football Standings
Template:2013 MIL Football Standings

Jweiss11 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable high school tournament. Seasider91 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and, though not directly on point, WP:NHSPHSATH suggests heightened scrutiny in cases involving high school sports. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Non-notable articles for football seasons of high school athletic conferences, and related templates. Delete per nominator's rationale, as well as Cbl62's comment regarding WP:NHSPHSATH. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; non-notable tournament, and fails GNG as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, somebody put a lot of time and effort in all this, but no, highschool games not covered by any sources are most certainly not notable... --Reinoutr (talk) 11:51, 14 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) 01:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Northern Michigan Football League season[edit]

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

There is almost surely a lack of notability on this subject, notability that would warrant a stand-alone article for a single season of a single high school football conference's play. I seriously doubt the coverage goes beyond local here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: no evidence of significant coverage of this high school conference's 2014 football season in independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:03, 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) 01:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewsInn[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG — the references provided don't show any significant independent coverage, and I've failed to find anything else. The first two refs both seem to refer to the same original research paper (which admittedly, was published in a journal). The latter relate to the official website. Original article was a direct copy from the research paper (which would be a copyright violation) though this has since been slightly re-worded. Interesting to note the author's comments The Publication appeared at the end of November 2015, so one can not expect to be cited in a month in this edit which appears to acknowledge a lack of coverage. I would suggest that the driver to write the article may have been promotional in nature, and at best this article is WP:TOOSOON about a still emerging company / technology. There's a clear conflict of interest given it appears to have been written by the algorithm's author. Note that the article has previously been de-tagged for speedy deletion, and de-prodded, hence bringing to AFD since there's clearly some contention. (Though, for the record, I'm not particularly disagreeing that the article wasn't sufficiently promotional to merit deletion under CSD G11)._└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. As a courtesy, pinging author Nicoaraeradu along with Blythwood who tagged for speedy deletion, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who declined the speedy, and HelpUsStopSpam who ((prod))ed; any of whom may wish to contribute to this discussion. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an algorithm published in a minor journal less than two months ago will need a lot of evidence to be considered notable enough for its own article. This doesn't look like enough. Blythwood (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. It was published in November 2015. It fails notability until it has received "significant independent coverage". @Nicoaraeradu: Yes, you cannot expect this from such a recent article, but that only shows that such a recent article does not yet need a Wikipedia article. Once it has become notable, feel free to re-add a article here (although it would be better if someone independent considered it to be worth doing so). HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing here to suggest a better notable article and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 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 delete. WP:IAR application of WP:A3: No content other than links to the participating teams. No commentary, no results. No prejudice against recreation as an actual article if this event is notable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Suwon Cup[edit]

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

Oh my.. Empty tables, no useful or meaningful information - No sources. ツStacey (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:35, 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.

1999 Currie Cup[edit]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AIRcorn (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tags say it all.. There is nothing really in this article? No lead.. No sources.. Its just a list of very brief meaningless results. I am not even sure which sport is? ツStacey (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Currie Cup Premier Division is an example of how I think this article should look but the earlier years are much the same without information therefore I extend the nomination for deletion to:

ツStacey (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article should be improved rather than deleted. However, in its current state, it's probably not worthy of being an article in the first place. I'll try and get around to improving it at some stage; seeing a redlink might inspire me to get around to that sooner! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – It should now have been improved to an acceptable standard. 2001 Currie Cup, 2002 Currie Cup and 2003 Currie Cup still needs work though. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – They just need improvement, not deletion. It would only take an infobox and a lead paragraph to bring it up to the standard of many of the other rugby Currie Cup season articles. Also, pretty clear case where WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should apply as a keep argument – every rugby Currie Cup season since the 1890s has its own article, and it wouldn't make sense for the consistency of the encyclopedia to delete four in the middle just because those articles were badly written. Aspirex (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – has the framework, just needs more words. Will have references in multiple news sources and probably some books. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I agree this article is now much improved and I have every confidence in User:TheMightyPeanut to do his magic on the others too ;) I withdraw my nomination for deletion. ツStacey (talk) 11:41, 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) 01:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew L. Hensley[edit]

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

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)).

Fails WP:BIO, cannot find any sources on subject. References included do not pertain to subject in question. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable autobiography of a 19-year-old police cadet. Completely and utterly NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Works well and the sources are clear. Matthew Hensley is well noted in the area for his success and accomplishments in the field in the law enforcement field as I am one of his teachers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcummins1991 (talk • contribs) — Jcummins1991 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Autobiography of a non-notable person. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:30, 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 speedy keep. per SK3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1916 in the United Kingdom[edit]

Half of this is already in 1916 Easter Rising, so there should be no such article. 1916 Easter Rising reflects both 1916 in England & Ireland. SamBrown98121 (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nomination appears to be malformed (there's no AfD header on the article), but in any case the nominator does not state a valid ground for deleting the article, which is one of a long series in Category:Years in the United Kingdom. -Arxiloxos (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. No valid reason given at all for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. It is not even clear which article this refers to as 1916 in the United Kingdom does not have half its content on the Easter Rising. Perhaps the nominator could clarify. If it is closed now, as I was tempted to do, there may be another article with an AfD header. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Pointless AFD - early close is appropriate. Szzuk (talk) 15:09, 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. The delete consensus is clear. The salt consensus is a little murkier, but it seems like a reasonable plan given the history (this will be the 4th time this has been deleted). If/when the device actually comes out, somebody can write an article in draft space and it'll be easy enough to unsalt at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S7[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This page has been repeatedly recreated and redeleted. If this page is not deleted, please make it redirect to Samsung Galaxy and protect it from editing until the product in question becomes official. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt until more information becomes available per WP:CRYSTAL Seasider91 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Samsung Galaxy as originally intended. There is enough coverage for a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Usually I'd say Redirect but sources are only confirming that it exists ... There's no info on it and there's no release date either, Between now and the release anything can happen (IE name changes etc) so it makes sense to just delete for now & perhaps allow creation in 5 months time. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't exist, and no reliable sources (i.e. an official announcement) saying that it will. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and WP:SALT. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 13:00, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Bachman[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. She is not in anyway better than a woman that is doing her job, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Sources provided are not reliable and the reliable ones I found are not about her. Facebook, tweetter, youtube are not reliable Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:04, 5 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£} 16:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, lots of people are notable for just doing their jobs. In her case, that job is being a host of a 4 year internationally aired television program. True, her Facebook posts don't make her notable, but there also about 20 newspaper articles about her, from four countries on three continents. In what way do you mean they are not about her? --GRuban (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the sources that established her notability? I mean those sources that covered her in details. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For notability, she meets WP:ENT due to being the host of multiple national or international syndicated television shows. Sources that cover her in details:

Chaska Herald, 2015
St. Cloud Times, 2014
Bow Adventures, 2012
Quincy Herald-Whig, 2013
Rochester Post-Bulletin, 2012 --GRuban (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out. I'm withdrawing my nomination and closing the debate with speed.Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:49, 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 redirect to Kroger#Former chains. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barney's Food Warehouse[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable WP:COMPANY that has not been in operation in about 30 years. Can find no sources that indicate notability of defunct grocery chain. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a few sources to verify that Kroger operated "Barney's" warehouse stores in Ohio[3][4]; I found nothing to verify a Memphis-based subsidiary by that name. Unless someone turns up better sourcing, the mention of Barney's at Kroger#Former chains should be corrected to refer to the Ohio stores, and this separate article should be deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to currently suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kroger#Former chains per Arxiloxos' sleuthing. We can WP:V that the chain exsisted (if this stub gives the wrong location) and that Kroger operated it. That makes the redirect plausible, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kroger#Former chains (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Arxiloxos and The Bushranger. Arxiloxos has established a connection between Barney's Food Warehouse and Kroger, and I agree with The Bushranger that redirects are cheap. The history should be preserved because it could help facilitate a selective merge using Arxiloxos' sources or the redirect can be undone if sources surface in the future that establish notability.
Cunard (talk) 06:01, 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 speedily deleted by User:78.26 under criteria A7 and G11. (Non-admin cloasure) "Pepper" @ 18:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh jha[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and appears to fall under WP:NOTLINKEDIN Cubbie15fan (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this for speedy deletion under A7 and G11. Using Wikipedia as LinkedIn generally falls under these 2 criteria, and that way it will get deleted faster. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's appreciated. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:19, 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. Can be userfied if somebody wants to continue work on the topic. Sandstein 10:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Muhammed-Oyebode[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:BIO. Sources provided are self-published material. Majority of the reliable sources I found her passing mention. She is a founder of a non-notable NGO that was named after her late father who was the former head of state. The article serve no other purpose than to promote her and the non-notable NGO. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:38, 5 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£} 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:42, 5 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£} 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that the NGO is "non notable." It's easier to find sources for MMF. The NGO is the first organization to support PTSD treatment in Nigeria, and that seems pretty notable. The subject of the article, however, is harder for me to find. Would it be possible to userfy the information about the NGO or redirect her to the NGO? I think MMF is notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can redirect it if someone is willing to create the article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft and userfy if needed as there are no signs this can be a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that the article should be deleted, To an extent the subject is notable and has led her organisation and other organisations to major successes. I believe adding relevant links and improving the writing style will help improve it. I volunteer to create MMF's article. Ebubay01 (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too many promotional sentences lacking RSs. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 23:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Userfy if their is someone willing to work on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 13 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) 01:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contrastive grammar:english and hindi[edit]

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

Essentially my argument for deletion is WP:NOTHOWTO. I'm sure that it would be possible to write a sensible article on this topic but this is essentially a grammar guide. And a very poorly written one. TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. –Davey2010^Talk> 01:57, 12 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. Sandstein 13:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's Skellton From Motown to Off The Wall[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 81.109.235.87 (talk · contribs), whose rationale (from [5]) follows: "Nominate for deletion. This is a hoax : album is not an official MJ release, does not seem to exist, and references point to unrelated material". No opinion on the merits, except to note that the article would likely need quite a bit of work to satisfy our policies if Kept. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches return of mentions of the album, yet no evidence anyone has ever offered it for sale. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Skellton simply doesn't exist, and none of the links in the article take you anywhere halfway correct and are purposeful wool-pulling on the part of the creator to get a hoax by us. Nate • (chatter) 16:53, 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. Sandstein 10:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grietje Jansen-Anker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very short bio giving no details beyond what fits nicely on a list. See WP:NOPAGE.

A trout slap however to the editors who created this article for deliberately ignoring the best thing we know about her! Perhaps they excluded this info because it does not fit their agenda of exploiting low profile super old individuals as participants in their amazing mythical race of longevity where being born or dying a few days one way or the other can decide which of a multitude of 'titles' they can earn, and participants are required to 'prove' their ages to 'researchers' who 'verify' them. Of course these hobbyists only track people in selected countries and make up their own rules that exclude 75% of the people on earth from title elegability.

Subject has requested deletion of this article (or she would if she could have lived long enough to see it). She rejected media attention and told the Mayor to buzz off when he tried to bring cake to her birthday party. ^[1]. I'm loving this old lady so much I'm asking you to help her out and vote to delete this bio of a low profile individual who is notably not notable and spent a super long life trying to stay that way. Legacypac (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2009/10/the_netherlands_oldest_residen/

Keep - She was notable enough last time this issue was raised, and nothing has changed in that regard. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a problem when applying WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is notable and has enough coverage in independent sources to indicate this status. Delta13C (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Europe list. Classic non-article which should be merged per NOPAGE, especially since (per one source) "Jansen-Anker was not keen on exploiting her age and refused to allow the media at her birthday celebrations, the paper says. Nor was the local Middelburg mayor welcome when he tried to bring her a birthday cake." EEng (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to the list of European oldsters. Wholeheartedly Endorse the WP:TROUT. David in DC (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE. I don't even think this is notable, given that all "coverage" is of the "she lived ... oh wait, she died" variety, but let's set the GNG issues aside for a moment. There's simply nothing interesting or out of the ordinary to write about the subject. Her page can be easily summed up as a DOB, DOD, and a bullet point describing the brief time she was the oldest person in an arbitrary small fraction of the planet. This is classic material for a list. ~ Rob^Talk 03:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if she passed the tests of WP:N and WP:NOPAGE, the subject clearly expressed a desire not to attract this sort of attention. While I am usually wary of deleting an article based on the subject's wishes (especially implicit ones rather than explicit ones), in cases of borderline notability such as this, it only serves as an additional justification to delete. Canadian Paul 16:49, 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice[edit]

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

This is part of a set of 300+ articles created by an employee of the publisher. It is a minor journal with one reference that lists only a ranking. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG -- Jreferee (talk) 13:08, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~I'm not sure if this fails WP:NJOURNALS~~, which explains that "having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1". Here, Journal Citation Reports gives this journal an impact factor of 1.585. Also, this journal may be abstracted/indexed in significant databases. ~~I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails WP:NJournals.~~ -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals; I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many articles on Sage journals have been created by employees of the publisher, but I cleaned up a good deal of them. In any case, having been created by a COI editor does not necessarily mean that something should be deleted (unless it qualifies for G11, spam). In the present case, the journal is indexed in Scopus and the Social Sciences Citation index, both selective databases in the sense of WP:NJournals, so this is a clear pass. Sourcing of the article could be better (see WP:JWG and my user page for tips) and it should be updated, but the sources are there and this is a clear pass of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NJOURNAL #2 (and per Randykitty) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, this seems keepable. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:12, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anopsology[edit]

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

Article is on an obscure "raw food diet" without any reliable sources to establish notability. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG, while terribly suffering from WP:FRINGE. At best, this article should redirect to Raw food diet. Delta13C (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A strong early contender for 2016's "most egregious use of totally unreliable sources" award. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps redirect as suggested. The sources are indeed not suitable to hold the article up - David Gerard (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I note, btw, that the articles in other languages aren't a lot better. The French version has references out to here, but my French is nowhere near good enough to assess if they could possibly prop this up as a notable fringe topic - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable bollocks. Alexbrn (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits on Google News or Google Scholar. The references are blogs and dead links. I find no evidence that this fringe theory has been covered in any RS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of reliable sources. I'd say if no valid medical claims, I'd hesitate to even redirect. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true it is on the French government's 1999 List of cults and sects as Orkos? 81.187.223.119 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(checking) Orkos is on the list [6] "Fédération internationale pour le développement de l'alimentation instinctive". Some kind of food based NRM, is it anopsology?81.187.223.119 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the French article is called 'Instinctothérapie' and explains that anopsology is another name for. I think if its on the French cult list it's notable as a new religious movement. 81.187.223.119 (talk) 19:13, 12 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 two "keep" opinions do not address the reasons for deletion (Fotaun) or have been refuted without opposition (Sulthan). Sandstein 09:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Statistics and Management Systems[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following link shows that the journal is indexed in Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Journal+of+Statistics+and+Management+Systems&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5). So I propose not to delete the page. Sulthan (talk)

Comment Google Scholar is not a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals, as it strives to include everything. --Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like an interesting publication "for the sum of all human knowledge"? Fotaun (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please tell us which guideline/policy says that "interesting" is enough to be notable? My cleaning lady is a very interesting person, really fascinating. Perhaps I should write a bio about her "for the sum of all human knowledge"? --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: see also WP:INTERESTING. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is does not satisfy WP:GNG because its notability has not been substantiated by reliable sources. Nor does the journal satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NJOURNALS. It is not indexed in selective databases and it looks like it has only been cited a handful of times by other publications. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Keep~~ This article is about a journal that has been indexed in several selective databases which are notable, such as Inspec, Mathematical Reviews, and Current Index to Statistics (for more search on the List of academic databases and search engines). Because of this, the article satisfies Criterion 1 of WP:NJOURNALS and it should be kept. - tucoxn\^talk 07:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those databases are indeed notable. However, none of them are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals, so inclusion in them does not establish notability and this still fails NJournals#C1. --Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. I'm striking my !vote. - tucoxn\^talk 14:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No links or possible links from other articles tot his one on WP, making it WP:O. Paper Journal is marginally indexed, but the Online Journal is not indexed at all. No news-articles found (only to the “International Journal of Statistics and Management Systems,” which is another journal). It all doesn’t look very notable to me. I am inclined that a delete-vote would be appropriate, but if someone could convince me otherwise, I am willing to hear his/her arguments. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:26, 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. Sandstein 13:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comic City[edit]

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

Previously up for PROD but was removed by the article creator without a reason. This article has no in-line references and doesn't seem to hold notability, the references given don't help it either. The first reference seems to be an advertisement for it. The second reference has basically no information. The third reference seem to hold some ground. The fourth reference might be a blog entry, I can't really tell. Ana r chyte 11:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: A possible outcome might be userfying it (see the talk page. Ana r chyte 11:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there are listed sources but nothing else to suggest better notability and improvement here yet. Notifying taggers Jac16888 and Garagepunk66. SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real sources, or indications of notability beyond size--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current sources don't support that it meets notability criteria, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage of this particular subject with this name to show it meets those criteria either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 13 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 per WP:SNOW. While there is coverage like this article that states that a CoD game will come out in 2016, there's nothing to show that a game by this specific title will release. If the game had a title then it'd have coverage in multiple sources and would be present on the developer's website. Given that there are neither of these things, this has to be a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: Lone Wolf[edit]

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

No references proving notability. A quick google search brings up nothing, making me wonder if this is even a real game. The only thing that comes up are things related to "Iron Wolf", which also seems only to be a rumor Ana r chyte 10:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete per nom. It should not exist until it was officially announced by Infinity Ward. It is more like a hoax instead of something legit. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy delete Even if the rough details are right (We know there's a CoD every year), there's no upcoming game by this name that I can find. Probably hoax. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Unverified info per nom. Also Wikipedia is not a rumor-mill Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I have found no news items mentioning the name of the game, only articles talking about the franchise and also an article from the supposed developer stating that it will be a big year for them. Seasider91 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW delete as the best my searches found were a link each at IGN (forum), gamerant.com (rumor) and an apparent March 2012 trailer all from 2012 but nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 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 merge to Saint Etienne (band). Never close on one !vote but nom should've been bold and merged instead of wasting everyones time, Merge it shall be. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asleep at the Wheels of Steel[edit]

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

Oh joy, a non-notable fan release. 和DITOR E tails 10:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Saint Etienne (band)]. The artist page can easily accommodate a new section on fan-only releases. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:51, 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 merge to Saint Etienne (band). Never close on one !vote but nom should've been bold and merged instead of wasting everyones time, Merge it shall be. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice Price! (album)[edit]

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

Three words: "Non-notable", "fan", "release" 和DITOR E tails 10:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Saint Etienne (band)]. The artist page can easily accommodate a new section on fan-only releases. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:02, 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. Sandstein 10:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics Bureau Group[edit]

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

Very weak suggestion of notability, if at all - fells well below WP:CORP. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. Looks like an advert. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as there's several sources but perhaps not as solid an article as there could be. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I reviewed other businesses listed in Category:Logistics companies of Australia for coverage, references and notability. I did not find the depth of coverage for this company to be so substantially less than some of the others in this category. (With the exception of Lewington's Transport, which will probably be deleted soon if not improved.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:25, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Amitabha Bhattacharya[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PROF based on what we've got so far. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, clear and simple. Delta13C (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NACADEMICS Vipinhari || talk 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article gives no indication of why he might be notable and Google scholar shows mostly single-digit citations to his work, leaving a pass of WP:PROF#C1 far out of reach. He also does not appear to pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree: GS h-index 8 and highest single-paper citation of 13 falls below our conventional thresholds for PROF c1. Seems to be no other claim. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brasmine[edit]

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

This is unlikely to be a better notable and acceptable encyclopedia article and, at best, could be drafted and userfied if needed. Notifying author Chaimlowy and past tagger Edison. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A dictionary definition of a non-English word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article was previously PRODed (by me) and tagged for speedy deletion as a dicdef, and the tags were removed by the article creator. Edison (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I am Italian and I never heard this word before now. No sources in Google Books or Google Scholar, which would be the more proper places for finding examples of the use of this word. Almost anything even in generic searches on Google (and apparently the few results are all false positives and there is anything about this "concept"). It not should be deleted for being a definition (the article goes beyond a dictionary definition), but per Wikipedia:MADE UP and because it is very likely a hoax. Or, assuming good faith, it is a non-notable concept which does not just fails notability but even verifiability. --Cavarrone 21:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article of no encyclopedic importance. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:51, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kunle Oriola[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Chief financial officers are not generally notable. In fact I'm not seeing anything outside the appointment. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found only a few links here and there with browsers but certainly nothing for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the General notability guideline. ★ Bigr Tex 04:20, 12 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. Sandstein 13:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Miller[edit]

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

Only one source actually directed relates to the individual. However, being married to notable people does not make you notable. Acting career has not brought any accolades as well. ALongStay (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Subject is referenced in multiple reliable sources. Seems like she is most notable for her modeling career and of course being married to two famous people. Meatsgains (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Now: This article needs a lot of help. But, we could try to find out more about her biography first. There may be some information to yield. We could see if there is more to say about her acting career. Time will tell. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 that is the point, I looked for additional sources and they are not any. Saying time will tell is like saying the article is not notable, but maybe a miracle will make it someday. That is not how this works, so your argument is baseless. As the thought-out comment below notes, she is noticed because of her husbands, but is not notable on her own, which is all that matters.ALongStay (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. She married famous men and seems to have done some modeling, but is not notable on her own. LaMona (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment':Susan Hunt (born Susan Miller) has, indeed, acted in movies and she had roles in Twenty Nine (1969) and The Wild Geese (1978). [[7]] Her role in The Wild Geese appears to be minor, but her role in Twenty Nine appears to be greater, as she appears near the top of the list. [[8]] That needs to go into her filmography. If the article stays, which now it should, then could be re-named (moved to) "Suzan Hunt." Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Howard directed a film in 2013 about the intrigue surrounding racecar driver Hunt, and the character of Suzi Hunt (Miller), played by Olivia Wilde, factors highly it it. It could be said that in addition to her acting, Miller has achieved a certain level of notoriety--enough notoriety to make her a topic in her own right aside from whatever else she has done--but this all of this needs to be better developed in the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Subject of many independent articles including [9] , [10], [11], and was a playboy playmate as she is listed on List of Playboy Playmates of 1972. Passes GNG CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very obviously the references are only mentioning the subject in context to her more notable husbands. Notability is not inherited and her acting career is of little significance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RECENTISM if Richard Burton dumped Elizabeth Taylor for her, and a $1 million divorce settlement between Hunt and Burton, heck, the notoriety alone meets GNG. We can't find material on people in the pre-internet era as easily, but she also was known as Suzy or Susan Hunt, and there's yet more stuff under that name here: [12], [13], [14], [15] Montanabw ^(talk) 04:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is an egregious BLP violation that conflates information about Hunt wife #1 Suzy Miller with Hunt wife #2 Sarah Lomax, who is the one who is actually battling breast cancer, according to trashy tabloid, The Daily Mail. Miller's film career was trivial and her only claim to fame was marrying two famous men. It is an insult to both women (and our readers) to host such a wildly inaccurate article here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question CrazyAces489, how sure are you that the Susan Miller who was a 1972 Playboy Playmate is this Suzy Miller? The first is identified as American and this one is obviously British. "Susan/Suzy" and "Miller" are exceptionally common names. Have we pulled three different women into a BLP swamp? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyAcres489 was unfortunately hounded off Wikipedia. I stepped into it here. You actually stepped into some of it on my talk page! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, MurderByDeadCopy CrazyAces was not hounded off Wikipedia (though everyone has heard enough of him saying it). He was asked dozens, if not, hundreds (literally!) of times to make simple improvements to how he wrote and edited articles. What he called hounding, everyone , including admins, called trying to help. CrazyAces leaves whenever he faces scrutiny or blocks for disruption, both of which are allowed here. As for what you "stepped into", it was me suggesting you write based on policy, not the silly belief all AfDs are some form of revenge. Other users agreed, so why not give it a try?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you are the one answering this! Feeling guilty? --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 08:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MurderByDeadcopy somehow I knew you would try and twist my statement to make it seem negative. I don't feel guilt for trying to correct errors that can easily be fixed if a user, like yourself, puts in just the most insignificant amount of effort to do so. Unless of course your definition of "guilt" is amending these mistakes, than I guess I'm overflowing with guilt. Now please, either comment something relevant to the AFD or I recommend you stop taking up space here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information Playboy's web page about the 1972 Playmate says that she was born in New York. Sources about the Burton/Hunt bride call her British. On the other hand, both were very tall and born in the late 1940s. Did she hop the Atlantic? If that was the case, I suspect that more recent sources would mention her nationality change. I suspect that they are different people with similar names, heights, and birth dates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 10:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live, Vol. Four[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM as it didn't peak on any major chart. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes general notability guidelines, where it has been reviewed at AllMusic and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and two Billboard magazine chartings are sufficient to pass notability for albums and also by band criteria, for albums are based off the same exact same standards.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn. I should have done WP:BEFORE rather than relying on the current references. The Billboard charts are still in fringe categories and don't really meet the spirit of NALBUMS, but the reviews do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Singh Naruka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV .Lacks third party references and it only has a claim of a non notable award. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:36, 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 05:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and unlikely notable and also I'm not convinced it satisfies the applicable notability guidelines. Notifying tagger Masum Ibn Musa. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet General notability guideline or more specific Entertainer guideline. ★ Bigr Tex 04:19, 12 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. Tending to keep this as an avowedly apocryphal person, but perhaps more discussion might yet result in a consensus to merge into top hat. Sandstein 13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Hetherington[edit]

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

There's literally no contemporary evidence that this person existed. The British Newspaper Archive's earlier record of this alleged riot is from 1899. Ancestry.com's international edition finds only two John Hetheringtons in late 18th century London, neither of them demonstrably a hatter. Most of the alleged sources didn't even exist in 1797. The whole thing is a mare's nest. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what the problem is here, there are clearly secondary sources which refer to the existence as John Hetherington as the inventor of the top hat. The earliest reference I can find to this is from 1899, there may be others. Given that we're not supposed to be doing original research as per WP:OR, the only fall back we have is reliable secondary sources, and these clearly exist. They could, of course, be wrong - but that's not our call to make. JMWt (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're required to provide reliable secondary sources. The fact that the earliest available sources are a hundred years after the event, and their own alleged sources turn out not to exist, suggests that in this regard those sources are not reliable. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have two problems: first that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It is possible that all the sources are wrong about this person and the events, but that's irrelevant, they exist. Second, it is obvious that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that this does not exist in the digital formats you've briefly used is not evidence that it didn't happen - there are many explanations which could be true - the sources are only available offline, they've been lost, etc. It'd be surprise to find that historical research about an event more than 200 years ago was as easy as looking at a couple of online sources, wouldn't it? On the substantive point, a John Hetherington lived at 12 Buckingham Street between 1764–1817, that's less than a mile from where the shop was supposed to be in the Strand. It might not be the same person, but it might be. There is no way to tell without doing original research, and wikipedia is not the place to do that. So we're back to using the WP:RS. If you don't like it, do the research and write your own book or thesis. JMWt (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if he probably is apocryphal, we have plenty of articles on possibly apocryphal people - I'd cite a few instances, but hey, the most famous example I can think of would probably be blasphemous to namecheck at this point in time. I mean, so many people love him and believe he existed and it would be in horribly bad taste to say he didn't exist. How cruel it would be to deny their existence. Think of all those poor people who would be heartbroken to think that, especially around this time of year, that there was probably never such a person as our Lord and Saviour, he who is known as Santa Claus. Sorry. Got a bit carried away there. Anyway, Hetherington is a well-covered character in the story of the top hat. I personally doubt his actual exixtence, but I don't think we should delete the article - if anything, this is an opportunity to provide reliable sources that challenge the fact of his existence, and informing researchers that such a person possibly didn't really exist. There are plenty of sources claiming he existed. Provide RS to show an alternative viewpoint, but do not delete. Mabalu (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge and redirect to the relevant section on Top hat which I think is absolutely appropriate. It's a valid search term and a significant "origin story" which we shouldn't just dismiss - too many RS have taken up the story. Mabalu (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with this outcome. A widespread urban legend can be notable, but it seems misleading to have a separate article about a possibly imaginary person. I'd support merging a better version of the current material into Top hat. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete this can get as much mention as needed in the article on the top hat, no need for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 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 05:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing that we keep this as an apocryphal story. Foxing the lede to accord with the details, sources in the text.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it is a pity that no one has managed to trace this in the Hatter's Gazette, and give the primary published source. However the number of times the story has (apparently) been repeated makes it worth having an article to pin down its origin, whether or not the events actually happened. Some primary historical research would be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just been reading the version from the London Times of 1926 - which appears to reference a relatively recent copy of the Hatter's Gazette as a source of the story - but which does not give the name of the 1797 source. If we could find the "old journal" it describes but does not name, that would be a much better reference. A fascinating but frustrating search, at present the only sources available seem to reference the story second or third hand.. I've seen other citations of news stories in the Times of 16 or 17 January 1797, but I can't see any reference in those editions of the paper. JMWt (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to correct myself - according to this source the reference later newspapers are using is from the St James Gazette of 16 January 1797. I do not believe this reference is available online, but the source which quotes it appears to be a WP:RS. JMWt (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As our own article reveals, the St James's Gazette only existed 1880-1905, so our RS is not so R in this case. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'm concluding this story would only be confirmed with a visit to a long established newspaper archive. JMWt (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I just heard back from the editor of the "Dictionary of Fashion History" who says that the reference came from the previous work of other editors who have been dead for many years. She says that she has no way to verify the information either..! JMWt (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If he was (as suggested by some sources) a member of the Haberdashers' Company, he'd be on their rolls, but that'd need checking. Another source suggests that he was a Mercer, but he's not on their rolls. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 12:28, 13 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Vinciguerra[edit]

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

Non-notable author, article not that well sourced. Notability is not inherited from being published in a notable newspaper. Some sources cited are not WP:RS. Alison ^❤ 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Vinciguerra is the one of the founding editors of The Week, he has written many articles. essays and books. His latest book, Cast of Characters is a major work on the early years of The New Yorker Magazine. The New Yorker gave him access to their archives to write the book, which they would only give to a notable and accomplished author. If he can make numerous appearance on CSPAN, then he easily merits a Wikipedia posting. W.W. Norton published his latest book, they are an established publisher who publish only serious authors, which Mr. Vinciguerra is. The article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavM (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 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 05:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the clear notability of his latest book: New York Times [16][17]; Wall Street Journal [18]; Boston Globe [19]; Washington Post [20]; Publishers Weekly [21]. His earlier book, an edition of writings of Wolcott Gibbs, is also notable: Washington Post[22], Time [23], a New Yorker Q&A [24]. The article needs to make a better showing of notability by clear references to independent reliable sources, and the tone at times veers uncomfortably close to a P.R. bio, but those are matters to be addressed by editing, not deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I plan to add the listed sources above myself. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with SwisterTwister above to keep. Lit1979 (talk) 23:33, 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 keep --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Singapore[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, inclusion in the Conde Nast list is not sufficient to establish notability. Most coverage of this term refers to an unrelated business in the UK. Coverage of the business in this article is not significant and is limited to passing mentions and press releases. Ibadibam (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across this when browsing articles for deletion and I was initially in agreement to delete it.. but then I got sentimental and now want to rescue it! I hope I can save it in the next couple of hours.. wish me luck! ツStacey (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do it? Did I do it? Is it now saved?! ツStacey (talk) 23:11, 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 05:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now perhaps as the current sourcing compared to before here suggests there may be at least some better sourcing. DGG Would you care to give any helpful comments here? (especially considering the second relist) SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Tropical Hotels: Thailand Malaysia Singapore Java Bali. Tuttle Publishing. pp. pt-230-237 (and more, scroll down) (subscription required)
^ "The Scarlet: Singapore Boutique Hotel Review". Yahoo! News (Singapore). (Be sure to select READ MORE in the article)
^ Boutique Hotel Offers Different Kind of Stay". New Straits Times
^ I Love it Here: South-East Asia "The Scarlet Singapore is replete with five-star international chain hotels, but good boutique accommodation is rare. Only in the past few years has that niche opened up on the island, which is odd for a city that promotes itself as a modern, ..." (subscription required)
^ "Singapore hotels go abroad". The Straits Times. (Amounts to two short paragraphs)

Keep. Seems clear that there are sufficient references for notability , There often are for luxury hotels. (Some such articles are basically advertising, but this seems to be descriptive.) DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 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. Will be happy to restore to Draft space if someone will commit to working on improving this page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Bacher[edit]

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

The subject does not meet the notability requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (music) or more generally at Wikipedia:Notability (people). 4meter4 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia notability requirements for musicians state: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." As the artist has been reviewed twice by the New York Times (a non-trivial, reliable source), the page should not be a candidate for deletion. Deeeyewhy (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in any of the references that the actor Dan Bacher, the director Danny Bacher, and the jazz musician Danny Bacher are the same person. Only one of four references could describe Bacher as the primary subject as two are reviews of the plays where the play is the primary subject and the Broadway world article is a press release most likely penned by the subject or his agent. If Mr. Bacher were the primary subject of a significant article profiling his supposedly notable career we would not have trouble knowing if these articles are indeed about the same person. This whole article is a construct of Original Research and there really is only one quality reference where Bacher is the primary subject. Even then, the article is really not about Bacher but about one particular performance at the Manhattan Club. There is no biographical information in any of these articles. The lack of any sort of biographical content is another indication of a lack of notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 04:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 04:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. From his official website, it appears that he is the same person who co-wrote and performed in The Funniest Show in the World (2006) and who performed in a jazz show Swing That Music (2015). Having said that, the claim to notability is very thin—two shows which have been reviewed in the space of nine years, and zero coverage of Bacher's life or career. The shows were in tiny theatres/cabarets. The Funniest Show in the World played in New York to a theatre that seats 100 people. True they were reviewed by the NYT, but then the NYT is also a local paper for the New York City area. The article is padded with name-dropping and appears primarily to be a plug for an album which hasn't even been released yet. It also has many biographical details with no published sources which suggests an autobiography. If the article is kept, all of that will need to be removed/rewritten. I'm willing to change my view if evidence surfaces of significant coverage of the claimed national and international tour of The Funniest Show in the World. Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft & userfy for now as the article is noticeably unsourced and this can be moved to articlspace again when better. SwisterTwister talk 00:17, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi nationalism[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is WP:OR. Google search shows nothing, book search is also shows nothing. Actually this article talks about "regionalism" and not about "nationalism". Human3015^TALK 21:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A random check of a few of the many sources shows reliable, significant sources. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amending Previous Keep Adding: Review of possible English sources is insufficient. Need to have review of non-English sources to avoid WP:BIAS Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC) (updated to resolve dispute below over how this item is to be labeled Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Thisisnotatest: You can't vote twice. Anyway, here you are also accepting that English sources do not talk about this thing and they are insufficient. There are no sources in Marathi language also. I know Marathi language. If you want proof that I know Marathi language then read article Manav Vikas Mission where I used all Marathi sources. So trust me there is no sources in other languages too. There is nothing called "Marathi Nationalism" but there is "Marathi regionalism" within India. And every state of India has such regionalism. Thank you.--Human3015^TALK 08:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual tangent about the nature of straw polls Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. I would have updated my original comment except that the Admin said to put all new comments below the relist announcement. I also made no attempt to hide that it was the same person commenting; in fact I called attention to it. You are welcome to assert that you know Marathi; you don't have to prove it to me. It is good to know that Marathi sources have been searched, however, often editors will assert there are no English sources, then somebody else comes up with English sources, so the fact that you've searched is not a guarantee that there are no Marathi sources. That still leaves many other Indian languages that may have sources which have discussed the issue and need to be searched. And don't ever mess with my comment by altering it; that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Thisisnotatest: If AfD is "discussion" and not "voting" then why you are voting twice? Voting twice is violation of policy. But lets not discuss on that. I can only tell you that there are no sources in other Indian languages too. Along with Marathi I also know Hindi, Bengali, Urdu, Punjabi.--Human3015^TALK 09:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Thisisnotatest: And if you want to make 2nd or 3rd comment in any AfD in addition to your original comment then you should use Comment instead of Keep, Delete etc. One person can vote only once. (Do you vote twice in your local elections?) As a nominator of this AfD I am also not suppose to vote on this AfD. --Human3015^TALK 09:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Human3015: I don't vote twice in elections and I don't vote at all on AfD's because a Keep, Delete, or whatever is not a vote, it's a recommendation. I did not try to hide that I was making both recommendations, so no foul play is occurring. The point of putting Keep on a particular recommendation is so that it is clear that it is an argument for keeping, not an argument for deleting. If I just marked it Comment it wouldn't be clear at all that I was putting it forth as an argument for keeping the article. As for policy, it's clear that if I were commenting on the same reason for keeping and marked that Keep, it would be against instructions on how to interact with AfD. However, raising two unrelated reasons is not covered. The only reason this even came up is because in the time between when I thought of my first reason and when I thought of my second reason, someone posted a notice not to post anything above that notice, so I couldn't update my original notice. Otherwise, I would have just updated my original comment to show both reasons. (And I can't copy my first reason to my second reason and delete the first because the admin has already considered it.) I'll post a question in the Village Pump (policy) for discussion as to how I would appropriately handle my second reason. In the meantime, I have flagged my second Keep as possibly being improperly noted so that nobody is confused by it. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Thisisnotatest: You can ask question at WP:Teahouse/Questions for quick answer. Anyway, what about article? Do you found any credible source? You can amend your vote to "delete" if you want. Because there are no sources.--Human3015^TALK 06:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Human3015: I'm not seeking a quick answer; I'm seeking a clarification and discussion of Wikipedia policy that we seem to be in disagreement over. I have posted it for discussion at the Village Pump (policy) XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep as it is a policy issue. While I do need to assume good faith on your part for making the recommendations you are making, I'm not sure why I would follow the recommendations of someone who is willing to alter my comments (by striking out the Keep that you dispute). Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Thisisnotatest: I am sure you will get same reply there that I already said to you. Best Luck.--Human3015^TALK 07:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptual tangent about the nature of straw polls Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion. I would have updated my original comment except that the Admin said to put all new comments below the relist announcement. I also made no attempt to hide that it was the same person commenting; in fact I called attention to it. You are welcome to assert that you know Marathi; you don't have to prove it to me. It is good to know that Marathi sources have been searched, however, often editors will assert there are no English sources, then somebody else comes up with English sources, so the fact that you've searched is not a guarantee that there are no Marathi sources. That still leaves many other Indian languages that may have sources which have discussed the issue and need to be searched. And don't ever mess with my comment by altering it; that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest: If AfD is "discussion" and not "voting" then why you are voting twice? Voting twice is violation of policy. But lets not discuss on that. I can only tell you that there are no sources in other Indian languages too. Along with Marathi I also know Hindi, Bengali, Urdu, Punjabi.--Human3015^TALK 09:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest: And if you want to make 2nd or 3rd comment in any AfD in addition to your original comment then you should use Comment instead of Keep, Delete etc. One person can vote only once. (Do you vote twice in your local elections?) As a nominator of this AfD I am also not suppose to vote on this AfD. --Human3015^TALK 09:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: I don't vote twice in elections and I don't vote at all on AfD's because a Keep, Delete, or whatever is not a vote, it's a recommendation. I did not try to hide that I was making both recommendations, so no foul play is occurring. The point of putting Keep on a particular recommendation is so that it is clear that it is an argument for keeping, not an argument for deleting. If I just marked it Comment it wouldn't be clear at all that I was putting it forth as an argument for keeping the article.

As for policy, it's clear that if I were commenting on the same reason for keeping and marked that Keep, it would be against instructions on how to interact with AfD. However, raising two unrelated reasons is not covered. The only reason this even came up is because in the time between when I thought of my first reason and when I thought of my second reason, someone posted a notice not to post anything above that notice, so I couldn't update my original notice. Otherwise, I would have just updated my original comment to show both reasons. (And I can't copy my first reason to my second reason and delete the first because the admin has already considered it.)

I'll post a question in the Village Pump (policy) for discussion as to how I would appropriately handle my second reason. In the meantime, I have flagged my second Keep as possibly being improperly noted so that nobody is confused by it. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest: You can ask question at WP:Teahouse/Questions for quick answer. Anyway, what about article? Do you found any credible source? You can amend your vote to "delete" if you want. Because there are no sources.--Human3015^TALK 06:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: I'm not seeking a quick answer; I'm seeking a clarification and discussion of Wikipedia policy that we seem to be in disagreement over. I have posted it for discussion at the Village Pump (policy) XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep as it is a policy issue. While I do need to assume good faith on your part for making the recommendations you are making, I'm not sure why I would follow the recommendations of someone who is willing to alter my comments (by striking out the Keep that you dispute). Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisnotatest: I am sure you will get same reply there that I already said to you. Best Luck.--Human3015^TALK 07:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AfD, in which this Books search was used to show the prominence of Marathi nationalism in reliable sources. What there is confusion about (and I agree) is whether this article describes a topic which is different from Marathi regionalism. I'm not able to comment on this, they appear to be synonyms to me. I find the arguments about nationalism vs. regionalism incoherent and it's not my area of expertise. But AfD is not cleanup; it's a notable topic, it should stay. Note that we had a separate Marathi regionalism article which seems to have been merged here some years after the previous discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename While the article definitely needs to be cleaned up and trimmed and its sources do need to be checked and verified and some replaced, the topic seems notable enough that some form of it should stay, perhaps it might have to be renamed under the suggested name "Marathi regionalism" or some other name. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 23:57, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Spaces in Freiburg[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I'm sure Freiburg is lovely, but are its green spaces so notable that they deserve their own article? There are no references to attest to the notability of any of these places, let alone the notability of "Green Spaces in Freiburg" as a whole. ubiquity (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Freiburg is also known as "green city" and it‘s many green spaces are an important factor in this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbstblüte (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One solitary reference provided to prove its notability. I see no reason why this could not be incorporated somehow into the Freiburg article. Calvinkarpenko (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) We have similar lists for many cities in the US and Canada and the UK; we even have many individual articles for parks and similar spaces,smalland large, some as small as a single acre. Since WP covers the world equally, geographic features in all countries should get the same density of coverage as long as thee ar people to write them. Writing a combination article as a start is a particularly good idea, provided for particularly in WP:N section 9 "Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, " The situation has been provided for specifically b policy, and used for many thousands of combination pages in Wikipedia. For a large city, there will almost always be enough sources.

(2)And there are available sources here: the deWP article de:Grünanlagen in Freiburg has 26 references! They just need to be added. The criterion for deletion is unsourcable, not unsourced, and the references are right there already in WP, and just need to be added. When an article is translated from another WP, it's careless to nominate it for deletion without checking the original. Calvinkarpenko, ubiquity, please come back and look at them. And there is no deadline. Later, this can probably be split into combination articles,as we do for the US and UK. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DGG has entirely convinced me. Thincat (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pretentious title-case title, but aside from being a perfectly valid subarticle where the topic can be given a better encyclopedic treatment, it also serves a navigational purpose. Esquivalience ^t 03:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the definition of a travel guide given on the What Wikipedia is not page, the article "Green spaces in Freiburg" clearly does not meet these criteria: It does not mention telephone numbers, street addresses or other tips which would typically be found in a travel guide. Zaffir0X (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG's sound reasoning.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 12 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apricity OS[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. This is the only third-party source, which is not enough to warrant an article. Softpedia hosts Apricity downloads, and is not an independent source, as they have a vested interest in the subject. The other sources, such as this one, do not mention Apricity in any way. Aoidh (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am getting a few reviews, but not even the usual amount. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Inadequate coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 13 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) 15:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quaianlagen (disambigation)[edit]

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

mispelling ZH8000 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A disambiguation page with only one link to an article is even worse than WP:TWODABS. sst✈ 13:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Misspellings most often are just moved. You first nominated for AfD, then you moved the page, and then you removed the AfD template from the page. I'm confused. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite correct. First I moved it to Quaianlage (disambiguation) (target), then I (tried to) nominate(d) the original article Quaianlagen (disambigation) (source) for AfD, but the AfD message appeared on the moved article (target) instead (otherwise the title above would be called like the target!!), which I do not like to be deleted, of course. So I removed it from there. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK, so "Quaianlagen" is an incorrect spelling of the main term "Quaianlage"? Am I getting that right? If so, then the redirect can easily be deleted, probably as a speedy, but definitely as part of this AFD. Is there any concern about the disambiguation page itself? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant the redirect from Quaianlagen (disambigation). The redirect from Quaianlagen is absolutely proper. And there do not appear to be any actual links to the Quaianlagen disamb page (nor should there be). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary redirect Quaianlagen (disambigation). The dab page itself and the redirect from Quaianlagen should remain as-is. I have restored the AfD notice on the nominated redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 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 no consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PFLAG (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page which just exists to dab a US organization from two international sibling organizations which are already listed and linked to in the "Outside of the United States" section of the US organization's article anyway — and after dabbing those three things, this then pivots into listing several other organizations which have similar mandates but aren't named this, and that's not what a dab page is for. Which means that this isn't a necessary dab page: the items that do need to be dabbed are already linked in the main article as it is, and the rest of them don't belong on this dab page at all because they aren't dab entries for this title. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 08:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, this is redundant with PFLAG#Other organizations. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This might seem like a weird solution, but I think the best hatnote would be one like: ((other uses|PFLAG#Other organizations)). -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Otherwise, you can't even get to PFLAG Canada without going to the "Outside the US" section buried in the article on the US-based organization. But the Canadian organization dates from the 1970s and has nothing to do with the American organization! A similar argument applies to the UK organization with the near-identical title FFLAG ("Family and Friends..." rather than "Parents and Friends..."). Ditto PFLAG China. This will otherwise make for a rather glaring example of US-centrism in WP: type a search term (pflag); find a US organization; find other independent national organizations listed in the US-based article under "Outside the US" and which have independent WP articles, provided you read through the text on the US organization first... Ross Fraser (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FFLAG in the UK has no bearing on the appropriateness or lack thereof of a disambiguation page for PFLAG. The purpose of a dab page on Wikipedia is to point readers to the correct topic among things which have the same name, and only the same name — it is not to provide an extended list of things with similar mandates to PFLAG but different names. So the appropriateness of this page begins and ends with the Canadian and Chinese groups alone, and does not encompass FFLAG or COLAGE or Tehila at all — nobody is ever going to be looking for FFLAG or COLAGE or Tehila by typing "PFLAG" into the search bar, so they're not dab entries for the title "PFLAG". And if you're really that concerned about a reader having to scroll all the way through the US group's article to find links to PFLAG Canada and PFLAG China, we also have the option of just putting a direct "For the Canadian group, see PFLAG Canada. For the Chinese group, see PFLAG China." hatnote at the top of the PFLAG page instead of a link to a standalone dab page — the dab page also unnecessarily complicates getting to the Canadian and Chinese groups, because it turns that into a two-click process where a direct hatnote just requires one. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FFLAG. There are many examples of disambiguation pages that link to other pages via names or terms that aren't in the title of the disambiguation page. E.g.: the science disambiguation page "Ecology" links to "The Ecologist" as well as (under "see also") to "Environmentalism". These pages exist to help the reader, so inclusion of FFLAG in the disambiguation page seems reasonable to me, though I agree that it should be listed in the "See also" section. Agreed that a hatnote would be a 1-click solution and while I wouldn't object to a hatnote uniformly applied to all three articles with PFLAG in the title, there are other national organizations called PFLAG that don't yet have a WP page (e.g.: Australia https://www.pflagaustralia.org.au/) so this hatnote might soon grow back into a disambiguation page. There is even a PFLAG UK (http://www.pflag.co.uk) also not associated with PFLAG in the U.S. and apparently also not associated with FFLAG. If any of them become notable enough to have a WP article (the Australian organization is very active), that's going to become quite the hatnote. Ross Fraser (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per PTOPIC "Is there a primary topic?" and with over ten times more traffic going to the US group than to any other, we have to accept that PFLAG in the US is the primary topic. So, with two other articles existing, and more potential articles, this disambig page is the standard way we handle it - not a multi-way hatnote, still less by a list buried way down in the primary article. The disambig page does need editing to cut out detail and remove articles with unrelated titles. And could the hatnote on PFLAG, instead of the standard text For other uses see..., say For PFLAG groups outside the US, see...: Noyster (talk), 21:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When you trim the dab page of all which shouldn't be in a dab page you're left with the Canada and China links only. So Delete and add hatnote ((about|the US organization|the organization in Canada|PFLAG Canada|the organization in China|PFLAG China)). If people think that hatnote's too long, or a fourth PFLAG topic gets a WP article, then have a dab page, but stripped down to the bare WP:MOSDAB-compliant version. PamD 13:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a useful navigational page. In fact, I think PFLAG should redirect there, as redirecting PFLAG to the American PFLAG organization is a biased choice, since the Canadian organization is independent from the US one. In addition, some redudancy in navigational tools in Wikipedia is fine as Wikipedia is not paper. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:03, 14 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) 02:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Velubha Vaghela[edit]

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

A "sarpanch" is "an elected head of a village-level statutory institution of local self-government". I don't believe this level of political leadership warrants a Wikipedia article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a village mayor. NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An elected position in a village of under 6000 population does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria 2 or 3. In addition, the given reference just mentions the village in a list, and not the person, so is providing no verification, leaving this article an unsourced BLP. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Levy Mobley Jr.[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON, our notability guideline for American football players, nor does he meet GNG. I cannot find reliable secondary coverage, and he has only ever played college football. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A college football player can qualify under WP:GNG if he has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Here, Mobley is a college freshman at Dartmouth. The Dartmouth web site (e.g., here) is not independent of the subject, as he is the team's quarterback. I am not finding significant coverage of the type required under GNG. If others can point to such coverage, I am willing to reconsider. Likewise, if he receives such coverage as his career progresses, my delete vote is without prejudice to re-creating the article at that time. Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 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 04:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH, and lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources sufficient to satsify the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from failing WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, I don't believe the discussion should have been relisted because WP:UNOPPOSED AFD discussions are really just an extended WP:PROD. In this case, WP:RELISTINGISEVIL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 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 redirect to Miss Venezuela. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Venezuela 2016[edit]

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

Unsourced article regarding future event, No official date/venue. Too soon Cheetah255 (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 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 04:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Miss Venezuela is a major event (much more prominent than Miss USA in the US, for example). Surely the article can be improved. A quick check on google showed that there is already media coverage about the event. --Soman (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Venezuela until venue and date is known. Unless Caracas falls into the sea, it's certain this will be held, but without details this isn't needed for now. Nate • (chatter) 16:55, 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. Unopposed. Sandstein 10:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICGCET[edit]

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

Non-Notable WP:EVENT Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPIP and failing WP:NOPAGE.Blue Riband► 14:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha van Hasselt[edit]

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

Oldest living Dutch person for FOUR WHOLE DAYS! Article completely devoid of content about the subject except for birth and death dates (sourced to unreliable crowdsourced site), city where she born, and year she moved to a nursing home. EEng (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three sources are Dutch which isn't fatal but they aren't particularly significant coverage of any length and likely just WP:ROUTINE obituary-style reporting. The first I think is dead, the second (translated) tells us almost nothing as is the third (translated). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that List of Dutch supercentenarians gives you a better idea of the pointlessness and complexity to prove her claim that she was the oldest living Dutch person for four days. While not organized ideally, the oldest living person in that year were Catharina H. Peters-Keultjes (died 20 March 2009 at just above age 111), then Johanna H.M.C. Boost-Dalloyaux (died 1 June 2009 at 110 years and quite a bit) and then Grietje Jansen-Anker (at 13 October 2009 just past 112). Then van Hasselt was the oldest living person (allegedly) until she died on October 17, 2009. It's not clear who was the next oldest but it seems like it may have been Cornelis Jacobus Geurtz who died on 21 August 2012 at age 110 and 109 days but he would have been 107 and change when van Hasselt died (he was only five months younger) but it's possible that there were others who died between 107 and 110 and thus wouldn't be in the GRG charts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing evidence of the type of coverage that would satisfy WP:N and justify a stand-alone article, and there is no obvious merge/redirect target. Canadian Paul 06:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough detail for an article, and poor sourcing for a claim to being oldest in NL. Is this oldest for 4 days thing an OR claim by Wikipedia, GRG or some real authority like the Govt? (Sorry hard to translate everything on this device). I am really liking her 'predecessor' title holder - who told the media to stay away from her and the town mayor he could not bring a cake to her birthday party. No exploitation for amusement of this old women! ^[1] and her article, written in the same formula, is going to AfD too. Legacypac (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my links above in my first comment. The claim is based on the second source here. The GRG has no involvement since she never lived to age 110 when they take note. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, not enough. Even her sister was older, but happened to live across the border in Belguim. Legacypac (talk) 14:33, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard CSD G3 (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Rhoads[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. This person never won these titles. He certainly did not win the 2007 Royal Rumble. Sources don't exist because this person doesn't exist. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jealous of My Boogie[edit]

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

Anonymously de-prodded without reason. A non-notable recording that fails WP:NSONGS. No charting history, no significant third-party sourcing by reliable publishers. Azealia911 _talk 18:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox (Snow Tha Product album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable musical release that fails WP:NALBUMS. The only reason the first AfD ended in 'No consensus' was due to low participation and an irrelevant reason to keep by the articles creator about how the artist was notable. Azealia911 _talk 18:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 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. Editor cannot nominate article per restrictions. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate controversy[edit]

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

Hashtag campaigns aren´t significant enought to warrant an article, the article itself is very subjective, repeats itself alot, uses emotionally loaded language, treats unverified and/or unverifieable claims as self-evident, uses biased sources using loaded language themselves, infringes WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SOAP, uses loaded quotes from random people who have no relevance to the subject or the sentence in any way, infringes the victimisation and accusation guideline of biographic articles, isn´t consistent if it describes the gamergate movement or the controversy of accusations to members of said movement and generally is written very subjectively. Due to the controversity and unverificablity of accusations to the movement and the constant misuse of the article as a political battleground by activists, there isn´t really any hope that this article would stay decent even if somebody managed to somehow get this mess of an article in control. Popcor11235 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CSD#G7 and a clear consensus here. Jenks24 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Power & Revolution[edit]

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

I find no evidence of notability for this game. Google returns few hits for either "power & revolution" or "geopolitical simulator", and really nothing of substance. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I did a little background search and did found this game indeed notable. However the article contains too much promotional content in it. WP:TNT Ueutyi (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find sources? —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable unreleased game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as from WP:VG/RS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No coverage whatsoever from reliable video game sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG, and does not meet our notability guideline. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as too soon, there are no solid signs this will become a better notable article, at least for now. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 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. Sandstein 13:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron and Austin Rhodes[edit]

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

The relative notability guideline for articles of this type is WP:NMODEL. Per said guideline, three criteria must be met:

1. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The only non-chat show that the pair have appeared on (they've appeared on two chat shows), was Scream Queens, they appeared in less than half of the episodes, and had less lines between them than that of a short children's book.

2. "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." In terms of social media, neither of the brothers twitter pages (Aaron, Austin) are verified. As for followers, they have roughly 50,000 each. Compared to me, they're superstars, but compared to other models on twitter such as Kim Kardashian who boasts 38,801,000 followers, Cara Delevingne who has 4,408,000, or Gigi Hadid with 1,081,000, they have a very minute fanbase.

3. "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Another of the criteria that the brothers fail. They're your usual models, except they happen to be identical twin brothers, and are both gay. That's the entire reason that they're 'famous', and were brought in to the public eye, not for bringing anything significant to the field of modelling whatsoever.

A direct quote from the article sums up the rational for this nomination; "So far they have appeared on one magazine cover". Non-notable models. Azealia911 _talk 17:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One magazine cover does not notability make, nor do any of their other actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some sources and coverage apparently but perhaps nothing for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 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. Sandstein 12:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Pocket (Indian band)[edit]

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

Not notable bar band that has not released anything of note, done a national tour or has any sources that go beyond a description on the gossip pages of newspapers (not reliable sources). Cannot find anything else that passes WP:GNG. Karst (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 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 02:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this has stayed enough time for it to have improved from its current state and although there are listed sources, there's perhaps nothing for a better solid notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schizo (album)[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009, no particular claims to notability. Dweller (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ugh. I hate trying to find Dutch sources. I can't speak a word of Dutch. I think this is a review from NRC Handelsblad, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Assuming that is a reliable source, we need at least one more really before this AfD can be closed as keep. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planiversity[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any coverage of company. Cubbie15fan (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:COI WP:SPA article on a start-up, referenced to a general article which doesn't mention it and the developer sites which are WP:PRIMARY. No evidence of attained notability. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG (possible CSD A7). AllyD (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 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 02:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is obvious enough with no better signs of a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 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. Sandstein 10:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Inwang[edit]

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

A ~~shamebolic~~ shambolic article about a subject with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps for now as News, Books and browsers found a few several links but perhaps nothing for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the nominator please define "shamebolic" which does not seem to be a word in the English language. Edison (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, shambolic /(ʃamˈbɒlɪk/) is an adjective used to describe something that is very messy or disorganized. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was familiar with shambles:I thought maybe you had created a useful portmanteau of shambolic and shame: "Shamebolic: A mess so bad you should be ashamed of it." Edison (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mere typo. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Search results above indicate that he has lots of coverage in Nigerian publications for his movies, some of which have won awards of one sort or another. That said, I am not familiar with the quality of those publications (are they reliable and independent?) nor with the prominence of the awards. "Nollywood" gets less coverage in the US media than Hollywood. One of his films won"Best International Film" at 2 film festivals (in the US and in Europe), but I never heard of the festivals. Edison (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: vanity page for non-notable subject. Quis separabit? 05:25, 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 redirect to Miss Universe Vietnam#Vietnam.27s Representatives at Miss Unvierse. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trương Thị May[edit]

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

This person never actually won a pageant - she was appointed to go to Miss Universe. The only thing she ever won was a PETA sexiest vegetarian in Asia award. Fails WP:NMODEL (pageant participants are combination models and entertainers in a stage production) and lacks significant reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Poorly ref'd too. Ref 1 is a non-RS blog. Ref 2 is a one sentence mention of her along with various other people. Ref 3 is a paper that confirms she would compete for Miss Universe. Ref 4 is the PETA thing. The rest of the bio is unsourced. Best line is "Truong Thi May saves money in her piggy bank from birthdays and holidays to donate to charities and help those less fortunate." Legacypac (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely nothing appraoching notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 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 02:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe Vietnam#Vietnam.27s Representatives at Miss Unvierse. Redirecting to what she is noteworthy (if not notable) for is reasonable, a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 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 02:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe Vietnam § Vietnam.27s Representatives at Miss Unvierse. The subject has received some coverage in reliable sources, but much of it is short or trivial. Additional sources are available using this custom search. No prejudice against recreation if the subject attains greater notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 02:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait But Why[edit]

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

no notable blog; almost everything here is from the blog itself DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No so, all of the sources are external Deku-shrub (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said, the blog itself or other writings by the 2 authors of the blog. ref. 3 is by Urban. Ref 4 is from the blog. Ref 5 is a reprint from Urban. Ref. 6 is to a paragraph that is another reprint from Urban. Ref 7 & 8 are a interview with Musk and Urban. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm not so familiar with blog notability guidelines, I had assumed the fact the content was syndicated to wider, more notable sources and that more notable sources had directly cited added to its defacto notability? Deku-shrub (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Posts on this website have been widely reprinted or referenced by other notable news media. This make it notable enough. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website has been cited by articles written in the forbes, the atlantic, techninsider etc... Needs expansion on content and references. A m i t 웃 02:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable enough. --Fixuture (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 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 02:00, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Albadran[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to the page: "His most notable credit is his role as Prince Tariq in the 2005 film Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story. However, the plot in Dreamer's page does not mention Antonio Albadran, or the role of Prince Tariq, and it appears like it wass a very minor role. Google also brings very little. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there's nothing to suggest a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 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) ––Davey2010^Talk 02:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Romania[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated article after discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Universe Romania. No reliable sources conform WP:RS given. No evidence of notability. Was tagged for speedy deletion, but that was removed and contested. Can be salted when removed. The Banner talk 09:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt fail WP:ORGIN. These are not automatically notable at rhe country level. They are tiny organizations usually. Legacypac (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No change in notability since the first deletion debate. Fails WP:ORG and WP:EVENT. No reliable sources in article. None found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: LOL, I knew this would happen after the prior AfD. No doubt editors will keep creating it again if deleted (and under alternate names if salted) - this happens all the time when crappy articles on notable subjects are deleted. Its a top pageant in this country and covered by the county's media regularly.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little work on it, adding a number of sources. One could do a lot more. Its an obvious Keep--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be improved to a similar level of the more developed national pageant articles TaylorMoore2 (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not a clean-up service. Notability through national selection for Miss universe. Such as plenty of other articles such as Miss USA. WP:ORG is qualified.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited... The Banner talk 22:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 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 01:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – An historic pageant dating to 1929 that passes WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. Sources include, but are not limited to (also see the English-translated pages): ^[2]^[3], ^[4]^[5], ^[6]^[7], ^[8]^[9], ^[10]^[11], ^[12]^[13], ^[14]^[15]. This custom search provides additional sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My Google search shows that it is mentioned in many independent articles in Romania, and is therefore notable. I used Google Romania (Google.ro), try for yourself. --WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:01, 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 delete. nn and spammy, not yet at best Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vrij Chhimwal[edit]

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

Fails notability. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as you know you have a notable article when it looks like this and has "let's see what's ahead next for this young musician". Delete for now at best, SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 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.

Eunice Chiweshe Goldstein[edit]

The result of this discussion was no consensus. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Unopposed. Sandstein 13:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Cote d'Ivoire[edit]

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

A subunit of Miss Earth this WP:ORG has evidently picked one girl to go to a competition in total. Sourced only to the Miss Earth website and a facebook post, it lacks the indepth coverage to justify an article required by WP:ORGIN. Over a dozen sister articles for Miss Earth country have been deleted at AfD over the last year as seen on the template edits [25] so there is good precedent to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 22 December 2015‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 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 02:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with you Legacypac. The article is not necessary. Artchino (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:04, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Chad[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and has zero sources. Appears to have operated only 3 years, and only sent someone to its parent pageant once. Legacypac (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 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 02:15, 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 01:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep The nominator's concerns are well stated, but Chad is a relative newcomer to this competition and collecting sources from Chadian media might be tricky. I am willing to give this puny little article a chance to grow. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:57, 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 no consensus. Participation for an AFD open over three weeks has been minimal, and whether any content is suitable for merging or the title for redirecting should be discussed further through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Albania[edit]

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

The best I can figure out, this organization was either a part time business for a fashion designer or a part time job working as country director for the Miss Earth business. The single source for anything to do with the business is dead. The 11 sources for who they picked in 2006-2009 are all dead links. Google search provide little useful info. Their business website is also dead. There is no evidence most of the article was ever sourced.

We do know Miss Earth used a sock army to build out numerous pages of a Miss Earth WP:WALLEDGARDEN.

This nomination has precedent. Within the last 12 months the sister articles for Miss Earth India, Miss Earth Crimea, Miss Earth Ireland, Miss Earth Lithuania, Miss Earth Macau, Miss Netherlands Earth, Estonia, Miss Earth Finland, Miss Earth Croatia, Miss Earth Hong Kong, *Belgium as seen in the edit history of the template [26]

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and likely other criteria. Before anyone says Keep because it is a pageant business, first prove it meets WP:ORGSIG please. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hear your concern about the sock army building out numerous pages of Miss Earth. But we have an article about Miss Earth itself, List of Miss Earth countries, and a list of Miss Earth <country> articles. Some of them are redirects, but some are real articles. Are you planning to nominate others too, i.e. Miss Earth Germany , Miss Earth Mexico, or Miss Earth 2008? --Mondiad (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each of Miss Earth organization needs to pass WP:ORGDEPTH and there are AfDs on several others that do not. The date articles barely survived a recent AfD but were then trimmed back of unsourced fancruft (like Miss Earth 2015) but loads of intricate unsourced detail is being repeatedly reintroduced. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 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 02:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I understand the comments but I think the information in this article should be transferred to Miss Albania. But I do not think the paid users (and you are so sure about that) because I have created some of the Miss Earth related articles. Artchino (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Miss Albania and Miss Earth Albania are two separate competitions although from the names it looks like same winners are automatically jumped to Philippines for Miss Earth. Some haven't even competed. Unless there is a clear proposal on how to merge it into Miss Albania, let's delete it. The user that created the article is clearly a SPA used for promotion.--Mondiad (talk) 21:18, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zazeen[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability; almost all the refs are not reliable sources for this. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as my searches simply found nothing better than a few passing mentions at News and browsers, hardly much for a considerably better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an organization doesn't get much news coverage doesn't mean it's not notable. We are talking about an IPTV service that's serving thousands of people and is being sold by major retailers (I have seen their demo units at Leon's. Just being mentioned in a major news outlet like The Globe and Mail is a sign of notability. The rest of the information was verifiable via reliable, 3rd party sources. Unless they get into billions of dollars in revenue or are involved in a major sex scandal, they won't be receiving any more news coverage. The reason I put up this article in the first place is the fact that I was surprised by the fact that an article didn't exist, while a poor quality article for a similar-sized competitor is allowed to stand (with a polite suggestion to do a complete rewrite). Bottom line: I went through the effort to put together a decent stub on a local business that serves all of Ontario and Quebec, even received mention by a major media outlet, is given floor space at a $2,000,000,000 retail chain and that effort is going to go to waste because you don't find it sufficiently notable?FiReSTaRT (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the comment by DGG.. While a couple of refs were from blogs/minor review sites, most of my refs came straight from the CRTC and one came from one of the biggest news outlets in Canada, part of the Thomson Reuters family.FiReSTaRT (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please note ref #2 as it's a dedicated pan-job story by Global News (major Canadian media outlet) that I just added (even though I used the reference for another purpose). FiReSTaRT (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are two sources that provide nontrivial coverage about the subject:
1. Brousseau-Pouliot, Vincent (2014-12-09). "Distribution télé: bientôt d'autres options au Québec" [TV Distribution: soon other options in Quebec]. La Presse. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  Zazeen, une entreprise ontarienne, compte lancer officiellement son service télé au début de l'année 2015. Leur stratégie: offrir un forfait de base ratissant assez large - incluant notamment des chaînes sportives comme RDS -, mais à un prix inférieur aux forfaits actuellement proposés par les géants des télécoms.
  ...
  Disponible en format beta au Québec depuis quelques mois, Zazeen compte lancer officiellement son service de distribution télé au début de l'année 2015. Pour profiter du forfait télé à 29,95$ par mois, il faut être un abonné internet de Distributel ou Acanac (les propriétaires d'Acanac sont aussi ceux de Zazeen). «Les gens n'aiment pas les grandes entreprises de télécoms, mais ils se résignent à faire affaire avec elles, dit Aaron Thomas, directeur du marketing de Zazeen. Avant que les jeunes de 20 à 35 ans se débranchent du câble, nous voulons qu'ils essaient une autre option.»
2. O'Shea, Sean (2015-05-25). "Companies use transit ads to offer big discounts, but details are in the fine print". Global News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  But many consumers may not know that the $19.95 deal advertised by Zazeen TV is only good for one month.
  ...
  Zazeen embarked on an aggressive subway and bus billboard campaign to increase market share. The ads promise “Over 100 HD channels and live sports” for $19.95 a month. But in small type at the bottom of the ads there is a caveat: “First month only. TV service $49.95 after promo.”
  The company told Global News it has not received any complaints about the ads, even though they may contravene the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards. Section One of the code reads: “Disclaimers and asterisked or footnoted information must not contradict more prominent aspects of the message and should be located and presented in such a manner as to be clearly legible and or audible.”
Cunard (talk) 01:35, 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 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding some perspective as I think it's bad form to vote for your own submission. This deletion discussion revealed a dedicated panning in a major, national media outlet (coverage doesn't get more notable than that), in addition to significant coverage in a smaller, legit media outlet and borderline coverage in another major, national media outlet. Unless the original detractors have additional objections or someone chimes in with new ones, bona-fide notability has been demonstrated and I don't see a reason to repost this discussion one more time. Two reposts were enough.FiReSTaRT (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received a compelling argument in favour of voting anyway. My rationale is above this post. FiReSTaRT (talk) 14:29, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACES (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Cubbie15fan (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 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 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy only if needed as none of the current links seem convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 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 proposed target page for a redirect, Dissimulator (band), has been deleted so that is not an option. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Dines[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Cubbie15fan (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Before I start being rude and obnoxious, I'm going to ping a few other users on their opinion. @The Cross Bearer, Walter Görlitz and 3family6. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First, you didn't ((ping)) us correctly. I checked for sources. The problem is that the coverage of the subject in reliable sources is not significant. It's brief mentions of his humour videos. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 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 01:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Cross Bearer:

Delete or simply Redirect to Dissimulator as either would be conceivable and I would've commented here sooner until I noticed this again a few moments ago. The listed sourcing is noticeable but still questionable as well for the independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete: I am an inclusionist at my core, where I find no meat-on-the-bone with regards to the BLP in question, it can either be a redirect or outright deleted. It must have took tremendous work to cull up the sources with marginal mentions, where I give credit to whomever took the arduous time it took to put this biography together. However, he must have been individually covered in them, for me to advocate to keep the article in question. I am glad, I found this discussion, where the pings failed to notify me of the topic.The Cross Bearer (talk) 10:53, 12 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) 00:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dissimulator (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Cubbie15fan (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 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 01:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't see it. No coverage, no hits (OK, it's metal...), no contract with notable company, etc...nothing but a couple of blogs and zines. Sorry. And thanks, Northamerica1000, for being a good sport about this. Drmies (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned as I actually waited to see if any other users were going to say anything but I'll say Delete for now at best as the current sourcing simply not what it could be, including solid that is. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 12 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambarish Mishra[edit]

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

The article does not meet the notability guideline for biographies. There is little to no independent coverage of the subject,. CarnivorousBunny^talk 03:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the best my searches instantly seemed to find were only expected passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 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 02:09, 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 01:12, 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 no consensus. Even after disregarding the more obviously canvassed, meat- or sockpuppeted "Please Retain" opinions, we don't have the support for deletion needed, and because the topic does seem to have coverage in sources, I can't just override all "keep" views. I recommend that cleanup is attempted before a renomination. Sandstein 09:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Pi[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)

This wiki article was created by a COI user and mirrors relevant advertising material, misleading claims and all. This in itself would not lead me to file this request, but the fact that one of Sinovoip's promotional websites for this product links to this article as promotional material I find particularly disconcerting. As far as I can see, most of the article would have to be thrown out and rewritten to justify the removal of the advert template, which may make it a target for COI vandalism.

While we're at it, I'm not sure this article meets WP:NOTE criteria. Acceptable third party sources are quite thin on the ground, most of the press it receives (that I've read at least) either reiterates misleading claims from the advertising material or simply nods at its existence.

I suppose I should declare my own COI: I have been burned by the manufacturer's misleading claims over this product line. If they want to lie on the internet, that is well and truly their prerogative, but I believe Wikipedia is not the place for them to hawk their faulty wares. Bawb131 (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This product is merely a clone of another product known at the "Raspberry." Most of the sources given are merely links to technical specifications. Known of the sources comes anywhere close to conferring notability. Article is heavily promotional. I declined speedy deletion as spam, but the article does come close, but not quite blatant spam. Article was written by a single purpose, COI, account. Safiel (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Retain This article is a very useful summary of the product family, which I find very useful. It is very difficult to summarise or document any product family without duplicating the kind of information that you would expect to find in product marketing material, and as such this is not a valid argument for deletion. Nor is it a valid to exclude an article because you don't like the company or persons associated with it. This product exists, there is a large community using and interested in it, of which I am a member, there every reason that its existence should be reflected in a Wiki entry.

I make a substantial donation to Wiki every year because I think it is a fantastic resource, in fully support this material being included in Wiki. What's missing in the article is some background to the manufacturer, the design and motivation of the product, this is easily solved by "adding" not "removing. For me personally it is not the most important content.

~~Please retain .~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.189.163 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC) — 31.200.189.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To be clear, I haven't proposed deletion because I "don't like the company or the people associated with it." I'm just as dedicated to the cause of a free encyclopaedia as you, and to dismiss my proposal by mentioning that you "make substantial donation[s]" isn't really fair. My proposal for deletion is as stated above: lack of good third party sources, misleading and/or false claims and the fact that this company has decided they can leverage Wikipedia for their own ends. The lack of appropriate citations feeds the propagation of incorrect information, and as for the last surely you don't think it is appropriate for your donations to be used to help deceive consumers? Regardless of whatever biases I'm trying to overcome, it still meets Wikipedia deletion guidelines. Bawb131 (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: both the NOM and the other comments above appear to be arguing WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT when the standard should be references in high quality secondary sources. I'm seeing articles in The Register, Digital Trends, and a range of other publications which suggest enough WP:RS for notability. The NOM has declared a WP:COI, it seems to me the issues highlighted could be discussed on the page and if necessary referenced rather than calling for a deletion. JMWt (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before I say anything further, I must admit my Google-fu is rather lacking. I wouldn't have opened this AfD based on my own results alone, but the (rather brief) talk page discussion and a heavy lack of other citations on the page itself leads me to think WP:RS is a reasonable concern. I also want to make clear that although I do have a COI as stated in the NOM, it serves as a motivation and not a reason (if that makes any sense). The proposal was not put forward in the spirit of "I was wronged and I want to wrong in return" (as has been suggested) but rather I'm just seeking to ensure that the information available from Wikipedia reflects the reality of this product line rather than the falsehoods present in the official advertising material. Unfortunately, sources that counter the official advertising material do not (AFAIK) meet WP:RS as they are in the form of forum posts and the like. Given this is the case, as well as the article's COI origins and the potential for further COI vandalism it is my opinion that the best way to achieve neutrality is the removal of the article in question.

I understand the continual allusion to 'misleading claims' without further elaboration may raise some red flags, so here's what I know (mainly pertaining to the R1 board, since it is in my ownership and hence the one I've read most closely into):

The "open source" hardware in question actually has no source code available. Like, at all. The best I was able to find was the source for the DTB, which alone lands it pretty far away from credibly being advertised as "open source." This appears to be the case for all products in the line, not just the R1.

The R1's gigabit switch performs rather horrendously. There are forum posts detailing benchmarks here and here. In my own benchmarks, data across the switch gets around 300Mbps but data to the R1 itself is as low as 60Mbps, a full 16x slower than the article mentions.

The R1's wifi performance is not great either (if you can manage to get it working without losing power to the board!). This blog post mentions speeds of 32/11Mbps one foot away when the product is mentioned in the article as achieving a maximum throughput of 300Mbps. I understand the legalese "theoretical maximum" nonsense, but if a distance of ~30cm causes it to perform 9x slower than the theoretical maximum than I don't think the theoretical maximum is a particularly relevant figure.

The article implies that you can actually power the thing. Given how much people's results seem vary, I guess there's some variation between different individual boards, but in my case using two USB OTG cables to supply power yields a board that with occupied SATA port will lose power if you stand it upright, let alone if you attempt to use the wifi AP or HDMI. See this for further info.

These are some of the issues that plague just one device, whose market penetration is so low that the only relevant sources don't meet WP:RS. I've been sitting on this for some time, but with this information in mind I really can't see how WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies. Any reliable source I can find about this particular board either omits the above facts (which render the device itself a hair above useless and Sinovoip's activities dishonest at best and predatory at worst) or doesn't meet WP:RS criteria. Bawb131 (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to the validity of your technical knowledge here - and I can't find the relevant policy shortcut - but we can't just take your word for the fact there is a problem, the whole of this encyclopedia is based on citing relevant secondary sources. And as I said above, there appear to be independent secondary sources which give notability. As Safiel says below, I also have no beef with this product and had never heard of it before. My feeling is that there is enough mentions in secondary sources to give WP:GNG, that's it. JMWt (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In answer to some of the comments above, I would note that my personal vote is not based on a like or dislike of the product. I never even heard of the thing prior to my stumbling across this article on speedy deletion patrol. As I said in my deletion comment, most of the sources are merely technical specifications and none seem to point to the subject satisfying WP:GNG. While clearly the other participants may have personal feelings one way or the other towards the subject of the article, my vote is based purely upon the notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now having registered, can I first say that my request to have the article retained is because I genuinely value it. I do accept that it is far from perfect, but it is a good starting point for something better. Nobody can help to improve it if it no longer exists because it has been removed. To this end I have put my money where my mouth is and begun to chip away at the article to improve it, though I don't have much spare time so this will be a slow and intermittent process. This might be the more positive way to deal with such an article, particularly if you have sufficient knowledge to recognize and correct its deficiencies. It is also a way to contribute to Wiki, though I must say a cash donation is much easier!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianmbetts (talk • contribs) 01:53, December 23, 2015‎ (UTC) — Ianmbetts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Great! I don't disagree, editing is a much better option, but as JMWt said above the basis of the Wikipedia project is reliable third party sources. In the absence of WP:RS to contribute to the article, this NOM has been filed referencing non-WP:RS sources. But in any case, I wish you luck. Bawb131 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 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 02:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Retain Why would you delete the page? It's a relevant page for a real product. I have one of these boards and so do a lot of people. This is relevant and useful. Thanks! Alexandrujuncu (talk) 22:39, 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 01:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Retain I see no violation of NPOV. Banana Pi is most advanced board from the family of "Raspberry Pi like" devices. This fact is not (strongly) advertised on the page (even could be). Every Banana Pi board is for technical people like different (new and shiny) smartphones from Apple/Samsung. These boards are very popular in technical schools and technical universities (I'm teaching on both types of these schools). Microsoft put Windows 10 IoT Core on these boards.[27] On the page some technical details could be deleted because are duplicated. --Milan Kerslager (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Retain I can't actually pin down any major problems with this article upon closer inspection. Upon reading everyone's arguments I'd point out there seams to be a lot of WP:WEASEL used to defend and attack the deletion of this page. I would point out that the number of uses makes me uneasy as well. I would suggest some improvements or more sources pointing to the problems discussed above in the article itself if such problems exist. Andrdema (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Retain Despite reading the comments, I don't really get why this page is up for deletion. This article is relevant to anyone interested in the ongoing development of SOC IC's and the single board computers they enable. I have one of these somewhat underpowered boards and use it as a general PC every day. If it is to be considered for removal, then why aren't the articles about RaspberryPi, Beagle Boards, and any other number of these devices also up for removal. (is there a 'Remix mini' article yet?) I have reread this article, and I don't find it advertorial. Even if it was, the appropriate course of action would be to correct the article. This piece of hardware IS entitled to an entry in the encyclopaedia. Kevbo (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Retain I agree with the others. Horrible that such useful articles can be put up for deletion. OlavN (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please Retain I am very interested in these types of products, and it's extremely helpful to have a lot of openly reviewed material about the BananaPi here in one place. Any product with market traction has notability. If there are errors in the article, correct them! Countless articles on Wikipedia describe commercial and open source products of all kinds, many of which exhibit some degree of promotionalism. Nor is WP noted for consistency, as articles are often cobbled together from many edits, becoming lopsided in their coverage. Thus it is unfair to single out this one. Wikipedia already has a bad reputation for excessive and often politically motivated deletion. Indeed it has given the term "Deletion" (from the body of human knowledge) a whole new and rather unsavory meaning. Please don't make it worse. A3burke (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time fixing the English, toning down sales talk, and correcting minor format errors. I have NOT tried to verify the truth of the content, such as whether the hardware is actually open source or not. A3burke (talk) 08:33, 13 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 Radiocommunication service. And merge the definition there or to other appropriate article(s). Consensus here is that because we are not a (technical) dictionary, articles should not consist only of definitions. That is no barrier against expanding the topic to a full article later, if it is deemed notable. Sandstein 08:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite network[edit]

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

Just a definition. Speedy challenged on the ground that ":This article is strict in line to the International Telecommunication Union´s (ITU) ITU Radio Regulations (RR) article 1.112 definition, agreed by almost 200 administrations during WRC conferences. It is in line to the corresponding ITU RR articles 1.110 Space radio system, 1.111 Satellite radio system, 1.113 Satellite link, 1.114 Multi-satellite link and last but not least 1.115 Feeder link. It´s nice to have the article Communications satellite / Satellite communications, however, from the strict scientific point of few it is almost popular level. At the other hand the article Communications satellite / Satellite communications might be related to Radiocommunication service, e.g. Mobile-satellite service (1.25), Land mobile-satellite service (1.25), or Broadcasting satellite-service (1.39), to mention only a few... " Looking at the ones listed in the template at the bottom of the article, they all have the same problem. Either they should be expanded, or grouped in some such manner as" ITU definitions. '" or all be redirected. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by nom, e.g. to Radiocommunication service (merging definitions there, and removing its many links to "main articles") as bigger and better articles on the subject already exist; all the dictionary definition stubs should similarly be redirected, no need to AfD them. And by the way that template needs serious surgery too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is not quite clear but doesn't seem to be proposing deletion of anything. The topic is notable – see Introduction to Satellite Networking, for example – and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. We don't have to copy each entry of a technology dictionary into its own encyclopedia article. ITU definitions are indeed important information, and each can be included in its appropriate article. True, the nomination quite rightly does not propose to delete anything. Has someone else proposed deleting something? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:42, 30 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, 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 no consensus due to lack of participation (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Hofmann[edit]

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

Article says she is a model (twice) but she never won a pageant. The only very short, very much a blog not a RS, says she was a runnerup in a local pageant and selected (appointed) to go to Miss Universe where she lost. In that event the girls are usually referred to by title not name, so with astonishingly little info and failing WP:NMODEL (pageant girls are a combination model/entertainer part of a stage show) we can't justify this article. Legacypac (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 23 year old women (that was her age at Miss Universe competition) should be referred to as women and not "girls". Using the term girls for adult women is demeaning. We should not use it in Wikipedia, but properly show respect for such people. We need to stop disrespecting women.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the industry [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] and here where Miss Universe call them girls itself [34] - I think a lot of things about these pageants are demeaning and sexist. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 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 01:01, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Cyprus[edit]

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

Non-notable organization that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The only mentions I can find are the business's own website www.starcyprus.com , the sponsoring pageant websites, and a couple pageant blogs that are not RS. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National selection for Miss universe and other similar competitions. Notable enough to stay Chris Ssk _talk 17:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Can you point to a policy that says this small business is notable automatically or provide links to the in depth coverage in independent reliable sources? I've had trouble finding either. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 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 01:00, 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 delete. Sandstein 13:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlDub Episodes[edit]

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

This article doesn't stand a chance because it will never meet WP:V and it basically duplicates content found at List of Kalyeserye episodes which is already an extraordinarily problematic article. I'd probably recommend a speedy-delete under A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) except that AlDub Episodes was created on Nov 5 2015, so "recently created" isn't met, and some admins take that kinda stuff literally.

For some background, one of the longest-running television series in the Philippines is a daily variety program called Eat Bulaga!. Within this series, they have a live segment called Kalyeserye, which from what I can tell, is a tongue-in-cheek, serialized fictional comedy soap opera involving a "love team" Alden (male) and Yaya Dub (female), who are constantly manipulated by some meddling grandmothers (guys in drag) some of whom are are trying to get the two together in romance, and some of whom are trying to split them up. While there is a general shape to each "episode", most of the dialogue seems to be improvised, and some characters, like Yaya Dub I believe, don't speak at all, they just lip sync to other people's dubbed voices. That's probably more than you need to know, and I'm confused just writing it.

The big problem, is that since this is a live daily segment within another live daily program, there's no reasonable way to verify what happened in the "plot". I doubt there will be reruns, and it would be silly to release these on DVD, because they're not actual structured episodes like you'd expect in a regular TV show. It would be like trying to catalog the daily banter between Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford on The Today Show. There's simply no real way to verify any of it, because no public library is going to have the entire Today Show history in their archives. So WP:V is not likely to ever be met here. Further, while the article creator did make a good effort, there are only 9 "episodes" in this article, while over 135 have been logged at List of Kalyeserye episodes. That's an uphill battle that will never be won. And for an example of how problematic that article is, you needn't look further than this "episode" summary:

"Alden tried to cheer Yaya Dub who was not in a good mood after all of her social media accounts got hacked. In doing so, he tried to sing for her, and he imitated Lola Nidora using Dubsmash."

What? Totally pointless venture and I may consider nomming List of Kalyeserye episodes for deletion for the same reasons. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either List of Kalyeserye episodes (assuming it isn't deleted later on) or to either Kalyeserye or Eat Bulaga! (if the list article is deleted) as a possible search term. This is A10 worthy, but let's assume good faith and the editor did make an effort. The problem is that neither article is in good shape right now and would need to be fundamentally rewritten. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks any references, appears to be WP:SELFPUBLISH. Karst (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not pass any of the WP:GNG criteria. Karst's point is also well-taken. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 13 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) 00:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chianciano International Award for Digital Art and Photography[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable award from someone's not-very-notable private museum, no hits on G-news, 1 on G-books (probably a false positive). The COI aspect does not inspire confidence either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 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 00:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs independent sources to meet the General notability guideline. ★ Bigr Tex 04:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Circular references; google books lists wikipedia books as only sources. A search for "Premio internazionale della fotografia e dell'Arte Digitale", yields 4 hits on google.Mduvekot (talk) 18:31, 12 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. Treating this as a WP:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid AlHail[edit]

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

This Qatari opposition figure is a hoax created by the pro-government Egyptian paper Youm7, which has a reputation for fabricating stories. Especially telling is that the only news sources I can find about this group of 30,000+ democracy activists (!) all lead back to this article by Youm7. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 00:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:00, 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 00:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main claim of notability is for founding a major political organization that does not appear to actually exist. Happy to recreate if proper sources become available, of course - but there isn't enough to support an article, let alone a BLP. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:26, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran: Hot Tea, Cool Conversations[edit]

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

The movie is non-notable independent movie and part of the family allied advertisement in the Wikipedia (i.e. Brienne Ghafourifar, Entefy and Mehdi Ghafourifar. 08:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arashtitan (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is very clearly written promotionally, along with being un-notable. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A recent film like this would a decent chance at garnering WP:RS, especially since Iran remains a hot-button issue. There is one in the article, the feature story on page 5 of the Spartan Daily university newspaper (you can scroll down to the read it). It says the film "had only one showing in a theater" and "This movie is expected to go straight to DVD." Even direct-to-DVD films have to meet NFILM, and this one doesn't seem to. A notable DVD production that presented Iran in a less hostile light might be expected to garnered coverage from, say, alternative media—but not this one. Now, there is the possibility we're missing Persian language coverage. This film does seem squarely aimed at the US market, but I suppose Farsi coverage is a possibility. For that reason I'm holding off !voting at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal I have already checked its Persian coverage and most certainly it is not distributed whether on theaters or DVD neither aired on the broadcasting channels in Iran. Arashtitan talk 16:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fair enough. With that, I'll move to delete. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please ping me.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additionally, through my research, I was able to find more screenings in archives: Centralia College in Washington State, Fresno State

In conclusion, highly unusual documentaries of this type do receive alternative independent coverage.Wheysted (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article in no way references Brienne Ghafourifar. It references Mehdi Ghafourifar because he is in fact the executive producer. The article contains no sales language and even adjectives formerly used to describe the movie have been removed.Wheysted (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything above that would make me change my mind on notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per coverage in such as Payvand and Efylakas (Greek). Documentaries rarely have the same level of coverage as do mainstream films. A redirect with partial merge to Mehdi Ghafourifar is also suitable. If kept, tone and format need to brought into line with MOS:FILM. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep but improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garagepunk66 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 23 December 2015

Some good finds by MichaelQSchmidt. I've struck through my !vote above, reverting to neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 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 00:46, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okechukwu Oku[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I can't find that evidence of notability. Win the ~~AAFMF~~ AMAA and AMVCA award, I will personally write a decent article for you here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as evaluating the current article and sources, there's simply nothing to suggest any imaginable better notability and improvement for this article. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikic¤l¤gy Do Not Delete as Okechukwu Oku WON the AAFMF awards for Best Video Editor, Best Cinematographer, and Best Film Director. The AFRIFIMO AWARDS & Film/Music Festival (AAFMF) is one of Africa's top Movie Awards, and I believe this speaks of his notability. This indeed is evidence of notability as he is listed on the Award Organizer's site^[1] as a recipient of the Awards and this link is one of the sources in the story, besides, I do not believe, a person must win an award to be notable. There are several great men and women of the arts who are noteworthy, but have never received an award. Pastorflex

Pastorflex, Afrifimo Awards & Film/Music Festival award is not what I will considered a major film award in Africa. Let me know, if he has won the Africa Movie Academy Awards and I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology Sequel to his win at the AAFMF, which you do not consider to be major, Oku has also been nominated for the 2016 Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards (AMVCA), in my opinion, I do not believe that his winning in his category should be a criterion for his inclusion in Wikipedia. He is a well known and respected Film-maker in Nollywood who has worked with a lot of the major Actors and Actresses in the Nollywood Film industry, as well as his work with Nigerian Musicians, as a video director cum music producer. His exploits are well documented across several Nigerian Online entertainment media including Nigerian Entertainment Today also known as TheNETng and Pulse Nigeria.

I feel the article is valid. Wikic¤l¤gy are you saying that you have to win the AMAA or AMVCA to be on an encyclopedia? I do not think that is a valid case. He is also a nominee at the 2016 AMVCA, which is part of the article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.159.64.138 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikic¤l¤gy in my opinion, I feel the article is in order, the references are viable and indicate that he is an existing Nigerian film-maker who has done considerable work and has been nominated for the AMVCA as well as having won other minor African film awards. The sources and references show that he has been actively involved in Movie making with a number of reputable actors in Nigeria. There are a few contents that are not found in the sources/references e.g. his education is not fully described in any of the sources, this to me is not a basis for deletion, but the article should be tagged as requiring more references.

Winning some minor awards is not enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. Notability is not inherited. Having produced one or two movies for notable actors does not make him notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikic¤l¤gy Keep he did not just win some minor awards, he was also nominated for 2014 Nollywood Movies Awards and the 2013 Golden Icons Academy Movie Awards for his work in Editing and Cinematography respectively. There are several independent articles about his works and contributions to the Nigerian Film Industry. I agree with the earlier comment about the need for more citations regarding his personal life, but to base his notability on his winning certain awards that you consider to be 'major' or 'minor' sounds a bit too subjective. Even the birth and dedication of his child was reported by some of Nigeria's top entertainment news sites e.g. Pulse Nigeria, which was also cited as a source/reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastorflex (talk • contribs) 09:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 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 00:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is about a notable Nigerian Film-maker, who has been nominated for a number of international awards and also won a few as well. The references can attest to majority of the information in the article as well. Mbisanz Northamerica1000 197.211.52.39 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "AAFMF 2015 AWARDEES". Afrifimo. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 7 December 2015.

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. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Daily Show episodes (2016)[edit]

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

Very short article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Ninney (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" One of the yearly episode list. - Ninney (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me a few minuets here I'm trying to get it started! All of these talk show episode lists start off short but it will grow and grow though the year as the episodes air, just give it some time. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Deletion rationale is wrong now and was wrong when nominated. The subject of the article is blatantly obvious from both its title and its content, and this was also the case when nominated. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Makes no sense to delete. Every year prior has an episode page. Mynameiskate (talk) 00:00, 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 consensus for speedy delete without merge. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2016[edit]

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

This article should be deleted after merging any useful content with List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2016. Almost certainly the latter article will need to be split at some point, but we do not know yet what the level of violent incidents will be. The 2015 article was split at 30 June, but the resulting article for the second half turned out to be too big, though just about tolerable. We don't need to decide the split in advance, so it is best to start off with just "2016" in the title, and just wait and see. NSH001 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my bad.... speedy delete is needed --Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've now checked, and there is no content worth merging. It can therefore be speedy deleted under WP:G7, see above. --NSH001 (talk) 19:59, 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.