Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 25: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:47, 25 December 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 24 December	26 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Avikzar

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Alvin the Almighty (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Clearly an unremarkable person, CSD A7. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have articles about Eli AVikzar translated in Israel Wikipedia and France Wikipedia. why it shouldn't be translated in English?

He is the founder of one of the biggest Martial Art in Israel, he trained more then 100000 fighter in Israel Army (idf), and if some wikipedia users don't know about this art don't mean that this don't exist. Their is a link on the page from Israel academic institute that have a page a bout this person. The institute name is Winget college - one of the biggest sport colleges in Israel. Wikipedia should be the place that people will find things that other don't know, and this is a opportunity for some wiki users that think that this person don't important do study something new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyname4u (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anyname4u: Please read WP:EXIST. Just because something exists, that doesn't mean it has to have an article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsrikanth05: Hi , I read it, this person not just exist, he mentioned in many books and independent reliable source. I add more links about the person in his page, you can check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.155.171 (talk • contribs)

Comment The reference formatting was problematic - the titles given were not the titles and implied content that just wasn't there - but I fixed that. Aside from a college web page the remainder are mainly passing mentions.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is notability everywhere, but likewise, WP:OTHERCRAP also exists everywhere. It does not appear that this individual has accomplished anything outlined in our notability guidelines to suggest notability, and they don't seem to meet our direct notability policy WP:GNG. Most of the sources mention him in passing or fall under WP:ROUTINE. Mkdw ^talk 00:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am opting to recuse myself from this deletion discussion as I have taken custodial actions regarding this AFD. Mkdw ^talk 02:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this person mention in wiki articles about Krav Maga and in other wiki articles about notable Martial artist that he was their trainer for example Eyal Yanilov, Avi Moyal, Kobi Lichtenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.155.171 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Clearly same editor as Anyname4u. Mkdw ^talk 02:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATA notability is not WP:INHERENT. Mkdw ^talk 06:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides his name mentioned in the articles were added by this user as well recently. Seems more like an WP:OPINION. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 07:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adog104: you not right, I add just the link to the article, the name was already in the article, and in one case I corrected the name, that is it.

Then my mistake then. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find significant independent coverage of him. I found passing mentions and comments from students, but nothing to meet the GNG. Jakejr (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he 2nd Krav Maga Chief in Israel Defense Forces, trained 80,000 male soldiers and 12,000 female soldiers, was main developer of Krav Maga after the Imi Lichtenfeld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.141.220 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Clearly same editor as Anyname4u. Mkdw ^talk 02:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? I can't find any. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have struck the edits from the two IPs as they are clearly tied to Anyname4u. They are single purpose IPs dedicated to only this AFD. Like Anyname4u, they did not sign their posts. The IPs geolocates to the same place and ISP in Israel. Their IP addresses are very close to each other in the IP range and adding their keep arguments about an hour apart. The first IP shares the same behavioural trademark of capitalizing "Martial" and references the other Wikipedias; essentially rehashed arguments. I have recused myself from this AFD as a participant in order to perform custodial duties. Mkdw ^talk 02:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OSE is not a valid argument in this case. Searches did not turn up enough to show that this person passes our notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 2 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) clpo13_(talk) 09:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brodhead III

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

This article has not been sourced for three years and google does not seem to be very talkative on the subject, leaving doubts on the reality of the issue Rinko87 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The lack of in-article sourcing is not sufficient reason to delete, and Google Books indicates that the article is correct (for instance in History of Cornelis Maessen Van Buren and The Stroudsburgs in the Poconos), though many books' content is unavailable. From the available book-sourced info, it's marginal whether it should remain an article rather than being merged to Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania and Daniel Brodhead IV. What tipped it in favour of a keep vote is this more comprehensive article, which, although not listing its sources, would have been created from reliable sources -- though possibly primary/offline in nature.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 16:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daniel Brodhead IV per nom. Being the first white person to settle in a small town isn't a suitable claim of notability. The sparse sourcing doesn't pass WP:GNG. The short content here is better represented in the son's article. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep I'll accept subject meets a very broad interpretation of GNG based on Mr. Norton's addition of citations. @Johnpacklambert:, what do you think of the new material? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Daniel Brodhead IV, being the first Euro-American to settle in a particular locality, and being a local judge, are not enough to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This does not accord with the article on Stroudsburg. Furthermore being the grantee of 600 acres (about one square mile is hardly notable. Possibly limited merge to his son and to Stroudburg, perhaps adding one sentence to each. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep There is enough information to have a stand alone article since I expanded it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with kudos to RAN for adding the material and sources that put this well past the minimum Wikipedia standards of notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 30 December 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. S. Jennsen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————————

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

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

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

DouglasHatten

—————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Self-published author with no significant recognition in the genre she publishes in. Superficial pieces in non-notable media near her original hometown do next to nothing to establish notablity. Not a single professional sale or review has been documented. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, have been unable to find anything that assists for notability, just lots of fansites and seller sites, most of the article references are the same. Some of them are newspaper/magazines but these are extremely local (freebies?) ie. "meet the cultural needs of Huntsville and the Tennessee Valley."[1] and daily newspaper for Houston County, Georgia [2]. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Viqar Ul Aslam

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

Does not satisfy the WP:NBIO criteria: a young entrepreneur, founder of a small software business, his only claim to notability is receiving an award from regional government - an award apparently not based on merits but on a public poll! Sources quoted do not help in establishing the guy's notability and comprise of a software review, a list of the 21 recipients of the said award, and a cursory mention elsewhere. So, this is a typical example of WP:SINGLEEVENT. kashmiri ^TALK 18:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at least as notable as winning a state level pageant like Meg McGuffin did. Guy started a business, won an award, employed people, developed products all over the span of years. That is more notable then most people in the world. Listening to some people here, a passing mention in a newspaper is enough to satisfy GNG. Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a degree, I would perhaps AfD Meg McGuffin - if not her coverage. But still I would't compare Miss Alabama and Miss America pageants to the Young Entrepreneur Award in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. It just doesn't compare. In the latter, in a public vote in a state of 14 million people, the most any winner received was less than 2000 votes, and media did not rather notice that. This precisely affects notability of a person. kashmiri ^TALK 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking for some consistent application of the GNG for Bios. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Fazzolari, efforts to delete a page with way more sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candy Carson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Wallace and the list goes on. I'm not going to be disruptive and vote against deleting every bio with a source, but when people are calling for a ban on me using AfD for trying to clean up promotional fluff... Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable as he has not just won youth icon award but also been able to win best entrepreneur not just that his poems in kashmiri and Urdu are widely known. He is a young entrepreneur who is recruiting young people by providing them trainings in a conflict torn state. He deserves to be on Wikipedia his business is not small scale rather a medium level expanding one. I have researched on him and he has been interviewed by Indian National TV - Doordarshan and also ETV Urdu short clips are on YouTube from these interviews. He has great Oratory skills and known sales communication trainer I checked his linkedin page which has more details about him. He has thousands of people attached their endorsing his skills and notability to be exact! I would recommend voting to keep this page and further edit it. The information about such people is of public interest. I will try to upload the bio part a lil more to it tomorrow as I'm gathering details on it I wish to work more on it as I'm new maybe someone among you can help me in building this page better. Thewikisquad (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Thewikisquad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

TV stations routinely interview tens or more people every single day, to fill the programme. Being on TV does not confer automatic notability, sorry! Or, I should perhaps get Wikipedia articles written about myself and quite a few colleagues of mine? BTW, his poetry is virtually unknown in Jammu & Kashmir, or did I miss something? kashmiri ^TALK 15:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as pure Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Business "awards" like this are a dime-a-dozen. Please promote yourself elsewhere. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Public poll" I guess that shows the notability rather than proving against it, public poll shows public interest. I don't see any parameters breaking that.

I would say "keep" after checking the sources which are reliable. If we deny bio with sources of reliable nature then I guess lot other bio should not be here.

Being a top entrepreneur in that state is quite notable. I don't see any open promotional material on the page but I think it should be edited properly to present the information in best shape. Jackbrownwashere (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Jackbrownwashere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you kidding me? Do you know how such "polls" are organised? The winner is one who is most popular in his/her uni class. Claiming that this particular award went to a "top entrepreneur" in the state is a joke. And read WP:ONEEVENT and WP:INTHENEWS please. kashmiri ^TALK 11:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding me using your experience on Wikipedia as a monopoly over reviewing as if you're the founding member of this encyclopaedia, if you cannot check and prove the sources are organised you cannot push on allegations like that, I did my part you don't have to debate as its a discussion. And just one person cannot have say over matters here. You should stop pulling strings like you wish and let others decide this article! Polls define the popularity of people and when it's published on reliable source.

You just don't have to be a cop over here, be a contributor give your opinion related to the policies which policy says poll cannot be considered notable feature? Jackbrownwashere (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Jackbrownwashere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 08:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. We need significant coverage, not bare mentions. The awards themselves don't seem significant enough to prove notability, either. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Notable as the sources have mentioned him for notable reasons not just awards. Please check the recently added sources. I guess Youth Icon Award is greatly notable. Thewikisquad (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC) — Thewikisquad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG , WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:ANYBIO and even his company does not appear to be notable.Further he is 25 years and upcoming and at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, How is WP:SINGLEEVENT While it has been reported for two awards nd two different notable achievements which includes creating the states first online radio which has listeners across the the world, I would request checking the CITYFMJK Radio for added links! The age argument is not worthy to discuss! The Page also contains notable sources that indicate the validation of the content! 7 link sources for 4 different achievements! not a single event! Thewikisquad (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Crossing out duplicate !vote. kashmiri ^TALK 13:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The station is listed as a "product" of his company[3] and actually is one of a myriad webcast stations that anyone can set up on the www.radio.co platform. It was started only two years ago and has almost no mentions in internet sources that I could find. Anyhow, this does not prove how the guy is notable on his own. By the way, a website I set up also has readers from all over the world but this does not make me notable! kashmiri ^TALK 13:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 2 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) Ya sh ! 02:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Smith

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

I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Searches found several links particularly Books, News and browsers but all mostly unusable coverage for notability and also mostly local news, so all in all, there's no convincingly outstanding improvement here yet.". SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the coverage I indicated when I deprodded it? You didn't find any of that? --Michig (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems he was on America's Got Talent and got lots of coverage because of that, although there is other stuff as well, including: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Some of that is pretty in depth so I think it would meet the notability guidelines and would be enough for a full length article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources provided by FuriouslySerene. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:57, 25 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetoon (Italy)

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

No references. No demonstration that the Italian channel is anything different than the global Spacetoon channel. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the correspondent article on it.wiki (created by the same user) was speedy deleted today, treated as an hoax. All author's edits were reverted. --Supernino (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The channel on Italy it never existed and was never born in any platform. The entry only contains untruths. --Stupoto (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:36, 1 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. To delete, but editorial transwikiing or deletion of the non-English parts is still on the table. Sandstein 17:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Words without consonants

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

Unreferenced collection of multilanguage trivia. Nonencyclopedic Staszek Lem (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would feel more inclined to delete this if the transwiki to Wiktionary were completed. One notice says this will happen. But the other notice takes that away and says the Transwiki bot failed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nobody wants to do this manually, this is not the reason to keep it for may years. If somebody is willing to undertake the job, one may userfy the page. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lovely piece of work, but it does seem to be WP:OR, and not supported by reliable sources. There is a single entry for "ewe" as a consonantless word on page 37 in White's Every-day English: A Sequel to "Words and Their Uses" (1880). This article does not mention either Spanish or Hebrew which "Segmental and suprasegmental errors in Spanish learning cochlear implant users: Neurolinguistic interpretation", by Ignacio Moreno-Torres and Esther Moruno-López, indicates both have multisyllable consonantless words. Perhaps @Kwamikagami: would enlighten us on what sources they (sing.) used in preparing the original article in January 2010‎. --Bejnar (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People have amassed a large list. But it is a list based on a trivial similarity. We could also assemble a list of words without phonemic vowels (drawing from Semitic and Slavic to begin with), but that would also be trivial. Maybe a small part of this be moved to a single paragraph under Vowel. Pete unseth (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until transwikied. BTW, we do have an article on words w/o vowels. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until transwikied. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename to List of English words without consonants, and remove the non-English sections. Given this is the English Wikipedia, we don't typically include other languages in lexicography-related lists. There are a few exceptions, but the word "consonant" doesn't even have a consistent meaning across languages. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and doesn't have indiscriminate collections of lexicographical trivia, but it does have encyclopedic lists of words. There are reliable sources which include such a list (making a case for WP:SALAT). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Rhododendrites. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:01, 1 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. Nakon 01:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous- How They Work Against ISIS

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

Why should this be on WP? Ueutyi (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonencyclopedic essay. anon vs isis reasonably mentioned in Anonymous (group). Staszek Lem (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as this is simply not set for a solid article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic seemed weird and weak to me, until I ran a simple news search: [9]. Sourcing confers notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Anonymous (group)#OpISIS. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Rsrikanth05. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a google news search finds sources. notability confirmed article needs to be improved of course but AfD is not a clean-up service. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a record of every single thing that is happening, every single thing that has ever been reported in the news or every single thing that is documented elsewhere already on the web. Did you ever meet an AfD debate where you didn't just say "Keep, meets GNG", based on a two-second Google search but not much analytical thought? N-HH talk/edits 14:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be covered adequately in Anonymous_(group)#.23OpParis and the present article is just an essay/advertizement from which little of value can be extracted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all covered in Anonymous (group) already, and this is very poorly written and not even well sourced. Plus, the tone is totally that of an essay. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say redirect this article but there is a small chance such a redirect would be useful. Just add anything useful into Anonymous (group) and delete this one. → Call me Razr Nation 10:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all the others. Not everything every organisation or group does needs its own discrete page, let alone a random essay like this. WP is an encyclopedia, not a politics noticeboard or Google v.2. N-HH talk/edits 14:54, 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Kastner

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

Essentially an advertisement, relying upon the utterly unreliable "Best Lawyers of America" designation for notability. The refernces merely confirm that PR, DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local law firm it seems with no obvious outstanding signs of better encyclopedia notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ (see below) I checked HighBeam, Questia and General OneFile and found very large numbers of news and trade journal articles on various topics where a Williams Kastner lawyer was quoted for an expert opinion, and some news stories where they were mentioned in passing as representing a party in a legal issue. That's something, but not enough. I found one (1) article where they were the primary topic and which contains extensive information about the law firm itself, rather than being passing mention:
- McNair, Elizabeth (2 June 1995), "Seattle law firm 'builds international relationships.' (Williams, Kastner and Gibbs)(Doing Business with the Russian Far East)", Puget Sound Business Journal, – via General OneFile (subscription required) , pp. 3A+ 1411 words
  The author Elizabeth McNair is not a Puget Sound Business Journal reporter, she is president of McNair Marketing Management, suggesting this is a paid-for or in-kind puff piece. If we could find one more article, with a more independent author, or a full chapter in a book, or perhaps a TV program where Williams Kasntner is the sole subject, I'd switch to keep. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. The article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) because the topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Margolick, David (1992-08-07). "At the Bar; From the mountains to the prairie to the oceans white with foam, a law firm sells itself". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The article notes:
  But a bold experiment, or at least what counts for one in the world of pin stripes and white shoes, is under way in Seattle. Forty-three times last month, in 60 seconds of saccharine broadcast during commercial breaks on the local news, "Good Morning, America" and "This Week With David Brinkley," the 110-lawyer firm of Williams, Kastner & Gibbs sang of its commitment to excellence.
  On the screen were actors impersonating lawyers at work and play -- sailing, fishing, water skiing, jogging, reading to their children, all All-American towheads who look like young Al Gore 3d. Also on display were soaring images of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle may be short of prairies and fruited plains, but as the commercial made clear, it has plenty of purple mountains majesty and oceans white with foam.
  One would be hard-pressed to know from all this that Williams, Kastner is actually a law firm, the seventh largest in the Northwest, let alone that it specializes in such mundane matters as insurance defense work and corporate litigation for the likes of Aetna, Johnson & Johnson and the General Motors Acceptance Corporation. In fact, one wouldn't even know the firm has a telephone or an address. But wherever Williams, Kastner is, it is clearly morning there.
  The article further notes:
  As befits corporate lawyers, Williams, Kastner did not tread onto Madison Avenue lightly. How would clients react on seeing the firm tout itself on "Meet the Press?" Thus, before anyone had seen the first gauzy images of children feeding pigeons in Westlake Mall or sailing on Lake Union, the firm's managing partner, Jerry Edmonds, sent out a sincere alert to the firm's 325 top clients.
  He explained to them why the firm had taken its first few baby steps into hucksterdom ("Williams, Kastner & Gibbs is not as well known as we believe it should be"), assured them that the firm had not lost its marbles (the commercials, he wrote, were priced "affordably") and hinted that lest they thumb their noses at the undertaking, they, too, stood to benefit ("The more successful we can be, the more we can develop our capabilities to serve you"). And, in case they had any reactions, he enclosed a "feedback form" and a stamped envelope.
2. "In the Summer of 1992, An Event Took Place That Made Television History". ABA Journal. 78. American Bar Association: 95. November 1992. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
  The advertisement has quotes from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal about Williams, Kastner & Gibbs:
  "A bold experiment...to deliver an image, announce one's presence, disseminate one's name. Wherever Williams, Kastner & Gibbs is, it is clearly morning there."
  —The New York Times
  "Stylishly photographed and produced...some lawyers and law firm consultants predict that other corporate law firms...may follow Williams, Kastner & Gibbs' lead."
  —The Wall Street Journal
  The New York Times article is the first source I listed here. The Wall Street Journal is not available online but is a second source about Williams, Kastner & Gibbs.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Williams, Kastner & Gibbs to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs), who said, "If we could find one more article, with a more independent author, or a full chapter in a book, or perhaps a TV program where Williams Kasntner is the sole subject, I'd switch to keep." Cunard (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. As indicated by the NYT article, Williams Kastner is notable because of their pioneering work in astroturfing fake news media stories like the one I cited, and in getting themselves quoted as legal experts, so the article should focus on that topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 2 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. While there is a collection of her "non-art" material, I am not sure if that would fit the criteria #4 of ARTIST. There seems to be no clear consensus and it has been relisted twice, hence closing it with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 23:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Leachman

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

No indication that this person meets WP:ARTIST Derek Andrews (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have flagged this CSD G12 as the article text is copied from the subject's own site (with its claims also referenced to that WP:PRIMARY source). AllyD (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article was initially speedy deleted per WP:G12 as unambiguous copyright infringement (diff). However, per messages received on my talk page (diff), Kristin Leachman updated their page at http://kristinleachman.com/info/ to read "Copyright Information: Copyright release for this page authorizes word-for-word distribution of the contents as long as citation and link back to this content has been provided within usage.". As such, the article is no longer in copyright infringement and the article has been restored. However, this does not negate the rationale of the deletion nomination itself. Notifying Derek Andrews and AllyD here so they are aware of this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She arguably passes WP:ARTIST criterion 4 (one work in the San Diego Museum of Art; I could not verify the claim of the Smithsonian, since the link is dead, but if her work is indeed in the Smithsonian, then she passes the criterion). On top of this, we have an article in Los Angeles Times, which is a large step towards WP:GNG. I only used the material cited in the article, do not have time for an external search right now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't verify that her art is in the Smithsonian, but they have collected other non-art material related to her[10].--Jahaza (talk) 16:10, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 09:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Zais

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

Beyond her summer job, name drops of other pageant winners before after and at the time of her win, listing of her non-notable parents, husband and daughter and other trivia, we are left with the fact she won a looks contest. That information is best presented Miss South Carolina USA when WP:NOPAGE is applied. Delete and Redirect. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 07:51, 25 December 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. Michig (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Kroll

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

Essentially an advertisement. Emphasizes such minor accomplishments as winning "the largest wrongful death settlement involving a car and semi-trailer for a female in Vermilion Count" . References for the cases, but nor for the firm. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG because the multiple mentions in the press are about his cases. He is not the biographical subject of media attention himself.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trial lawyer with no particular claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) because its subject has not been the focus of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 18:56, 30 December 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. Michig (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings Strouss

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

Esssetially an advertisement. The sources show no more than selection for "Best Lawyers of America", a thoroughly meaningless distinction. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 14:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local law firm it seems with no obvious outstanding signs of better encyclopedia notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. The article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) because the topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 18:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DGG and Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 1 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Noahsauthority

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 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend experience

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

Non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO and WP:NAD, since of course "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide." This article is a textbook case, discussing coined terms and phrases, perhaps suitable for Wiktionary but not Wikipedia. (Previous AFD in 2007 was of a different deletion era and 2012 was discussion about references, not policy.) -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a widely use phrase and a topic far more notable then many articles here like Meg McGuffin. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of another article has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. The article fails WP:NEO and WP:NAD. Nothing you have said rebuts that. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Legacypac, and rewrite. It currently looks like an essay. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article fails policy. An article consisting of definitions and neologisms are forbidden, no matter how it's structured. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SR-22 (insurance). I agree that this can and should have been done with need for a heavyweight process like AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate of Financial Responsibility, Auto Insurance

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

Fails WP:ORG. Recreated article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 17 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) 05:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SR-22 (insurance): alternative terms for the same document ([11], [12] and many others): Noyster (talk), 18:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SR-22 (insurance) as per Noyster, as clearly they both are about the same subject. Nothing new to merge. Probably should have simply been done to begin with rather than prodding and taking it here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 2 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. Been up 4 weeks and there's hardly been any discussion so relisting for a 4th time would be pointless and a waste of time, Consensus is to Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winter's Bane

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

Currently this is questionably notable and improvable as both English and Polish Wiki have a few links but this hardly seems enough for a better article and the best my searches found was only this (basically a few passing mentions, hardly in-depth), this second one is actually simply a Wiki mirror and lastly these links. At best, in the case this is better known through Tim Owens, this article can simply be redirected to his. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the original writer of the article, but here's some multiple nontrivial published works that are (usually considered) reliable regarding this band: http://www.metalstorm.net/pub/review.php?review_id=3182 for an album review, http://www.allmusic.com/artist/winters-bane-mn0001820872 for a biography, as well as Garry Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Power Metal (which I don't have on me at the moment so I can't verify the page, but they were for sure given a biography in that book). EDIT: Page 486 according to the reference I previously added on List of power metal bands. Is it satisfactory to introduce these references to the article in order to indicate notability? Vortiene (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortiene: There has been extensive discussion about whether Allmusic.com is a reliable source. As Liz said here: it depends. Band clasiifications and other metadata at Allmusic.com are user sourced and are deemed unreliable. Individual reviews depend upon the reliability of the particular reviewer. Although it has only appeared on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard twice, the consensus seems to be the same, band classifications are suspect and individual reviews depend upon the reliability of the particular reviewer. A-Z of Power Metal has not been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it is always a good idea to have a source in front of you when citing it. WP:SAYWHERE says: Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. --Bejnar (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I own this book, and there is a section regarding winter's bane on page 486. I usually only use allmusic as a source for band biographies, in which power metal bios are typically written by Eduardo rivadavia, who seems to be referenced often. Metal storm is a database/review site with editors who look over reviews written by their authors. There are reviews written by users, but these are marked as guest reviews. The one linked is not marked as a guest review and hence written by a member of staff and reviewed by an editor. Vortiene (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 17 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) 04:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No argument for deletion (i.e., the use of admin tools). Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would appreciate if this were relisted a third time as there hasn't been a clear consensus yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reasonable coverage already identified. More coverage shows up in GBooks. --Michig (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Making way for more discussion per nominator request. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a strong enough consensus to delete the article. Nakon 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totenmond

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

PROD was removed by Michig with saying that having ten albums with Massacre Records would satisy bands notability guidelines but I'm still questionable about that, as it could simply be that any available coverage is archived but that's an "if" of course", and since my searches found no better coverage and there are no obvious signs of there being any....here we are at AfD. Notifying past user Drmies in case he had any comments at the time. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the circularity in NBAND. A band is notable if it released a few albums on a notable label, and a label is notable if it has a couple of notable bands under contract--it's the closest thing to a walled garden we have on Wikipedia. So strictly speaking Michig is right, I suppose, but it leads to a ton of articles where we have nothing to write an article with, nothing reliable, but we can't delete it. Case in point: Creepmime, which lacks any verified content. And their 1993 album is boring, by the way. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 17 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) 04:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I sincerely hope this can be relisted again as I was notified one heavy metal fan user is planning to comment here. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist per nominator's request. Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it might meet WP:BAND by the letter, just putting out a few albums that received a few comments at the time and no longer seem to generate any interest doesn't seem to meet the stated goal of Wikipedia notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I think there might be a language barrier in play, but we need sources to write an article regardless of any technical claim to notability. If we don't have enough of them, even if it's notable there shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Sort of a WP:TNT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Hare (author)

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

Non-notable author. Notability not supported by references. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam seemingly found some links but nothing surprisingly better. Notifying past users DGG and Oshwah. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. He has 5 books with about 200-300 libraries holding each, and there will presumably be reviews, though they need to be looked for. He's written quite a miscellany. This may not be an autobio, for he's a published author, but some parts were almost indecipherable. I've cleaned up what I was sure of. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, he's written some books, but that's not enough for notability. There is one review in Booklist, and zero in Kirkus. No impact. Not notable. LaMona (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, I'm with DGG here. Not only do libraries hold his books, his film noir books get cited in other books about film noir. A proquest search on the title turned up a published review of his history of the Holy Land.(now added to page) I hope the article creator will return with more references, because searching for someone named William Hare who writes on divers topics is like looking for a specific rabbit in Farmer MacGregor's garden.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, this has in the last day become a cringe-worthy press release, supported by primary sources. If it's kept it'll need a lot of clean-up. 2601:188:0:ABE6:AC2E:9C35:B399:A9E0 (talk) 13:35, 24 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) 04:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I commented as the IP above, and edited the article to remove a lot of unsourced content). I can't find much, or any, substantial coverage about the author or his books. Inclusion in libraries doesn't appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, and if there isn't any in-depth coverage about him from WP:RELIABLE sources, it's difficult to see keeping this. I was probably mistaken to refer to this as an autobiography--more likely this was begun by a friend or a student as an assignment. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Keep.~~ Clearly a notable author, with many library holdings and there should be corresponding reviews. The format and the style are incomprehensibly bad, but ut's been partly rewritten already, and I'm rewriting it further. Not characteristic of student work; can't conceivably have been written by a published author themselves, so I remain piuzzled. But it can be rescued. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG I'm sure you didn't mean to vote 'keep' twice, and must have forgotten your earlier comment. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a feeling I'd seen it before .... DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An account persists in adding poorly sourced and badly written promotional content. I continue to remove the cruft, but each time I'm led to question whether the author's works, represented in libraries, are enough to establish notability. Perhaps it is, and in this respect DGG may be ultimately authoritative, but lacking extensive coverage of the author or his books, this reminds me of artist bios that use a listing of gallery shows to support notability, in lieu of objective coverage. At any rate, the recurrent unacceptable edits may induce a request for page protection, and in the short term muddy the ability to properly assess the article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 30 December 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RenWeb

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

This article should be deleted because it is written like an advertisement and has no educational value Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the nomination for the user, who posted it on the article's talk page. ansh 666 10:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It may be written as an advertisement, but the notability of it is clearly established because it is used by many schools. In veritas (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as my searches found nothing noticeably better than links at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam but perhaps nothing for a solidly noticeably notable article as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 17 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) 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Current article is nothing more than a promotional brochure. Regardless of notability, per WP:DEL4, this article needs to be blown up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 2 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. Since it has been relisted twice, closing it. The episode seems to have received coverage specifically focused on it and the consensus leans towards keeping it. Renamed to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode). (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 02:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dog-whistle politics (Scandal)

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

This article is about particular episode in the TV show "Scandal." Shouldn't this episode be included in that realm instead of making a completely new article about one episode? TheInformativePanda (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Making a Wikipedia page for each episode doesn't help the fans of the series nor everybody else, especially 'Dog-whistle politics' is a political term used in the UK. Article should be merged.45sixtyone (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode) for correctness/clarity. Wikipedia:Television episodes applies, the Huffington Post article provides a little context/reflection, the Time magazine ref establishes notability, and the article is properly constructed and contains information over and above that in the Episode List.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: Keep but move to Dog-Whistle Politics (Scandal episode) because it does meet the notability standards. Amazingstuff101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that it received more press that most television episodes, but it is not independently notable. The articles go to the notability of Scandal. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider required to reach sufficient notibility for this episode (independently)? In the case of this Scandal episode:

As with everything, there are enough mundane recaps, episode reviews, and ratings information to provide a base article (not sufficient in itself to establish notability).
Time rating this particular episode as one of the third-best episode of 2015 adds weight to the episode's Reception.
For a dissenting view see this.
This piece puts the episode into specific context with a dispute between former NYT critic Alessandra Stanley and Scandal's showrunner. Shonda Rhimes (ref not in current article) -- this provides some more background on the incident.
This piece includes comment by Rhimes on the episode/context.
Another piece which links the incident with this episode is this.
The Huffington Post article explicitly discusses the issues raised by this episode.
The contextual information cannot be easily and naturally included in an aggregated page.

Perhaps WP:Television episodes could do with a community-agreed rubric for notability given the huge quantity of episode-specific articles on wikipedia (cf Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes#Policy_inconsistent_with_reality). Cheers, ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is weak, and there might be an argument for merging it into a season list, but there's enough provided significant coverage from reliable sources that it demonstrates notability beyond just the show itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:09, 17 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) 04:53, 25 December 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, noting that NinjaRobotPirate has ceded to the delete arguments and struck his keep recommendation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Reese (computer programmer)

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

No in-depth coverage in independent sources - üser:Altenmann >t 04:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I think maybe he's got enough coverage to warrant a keep: [13] from Star Tribune, [14] from Forbes (mostly an interview), [15] from Wired.com, [16] from Fortune. He also gets quoted as an expert in various Network World articles: [17], [18], [19], [20]. It's not exactly easy to find biographical information about him online, but he does show in reliable sources more often than I expected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lots of good people get cited and cite each other. We are talking about significant coverage and claims of notability. By this logic I can easily write article about myself. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The only thing to judge this subject on is as an author, because there are no sources for him as anything else. Then it becomes even more difficult because the authors of technical books are... well, they are technical writers. They aren't inventors or creators, and it's hard to see them as culturally significant. Some technical writers produce the massive manuals that accompany heavy equipment, some produce elegant explanations of IT. I find it a stretch to consider this notability as defined in WP:CREATIVE and yet being able to produce those O'Reilly books is a particular skill. They don't get reviewed anywhere but tech sources, and even then I think that most people take for granted that the O'Reilly book on a topic will be about the best you can get. I looked up some of my favorite IT/programming writers and they aren't in here, which may be as it should be. LaMona (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 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 02:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of the kind of sources needed to write a biography. The sources found by NinjaRobotPirate might be appropriate sources for the things Reese is interviewed about, but not for an article about him. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alright, it's been this long and nobody agrees with me. I'll strike through my vote due to the arguments made against the sources I found. Maybe I was too generous. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:03, 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. Sandstein 18:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maciej Sulęcki

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. Unreferenced excepted for Boxrec Peter Rehse (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article except for a link to his fight record and it doesn't show any significant titles. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article shows no significant coverage and I don't see anything that shows he meets WP:NBOX. I don't think winning the vacant "Republic of Poland International" title is enough. I'm not even sure what that title is or who sanctions it. His record is good, so this may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I have no objections to this article being userfied. Papaursa (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very poorly written article but he does pass WP:NBOX under Criteria 2 as national champion of Poland, however, I am not sure if there are other affiliated sanctioning organization is Poland. The level of opposition he has faced has really ramped up since he won that title of two of the last three opponents that he has beaten have their own articles. I will improve it a little now but my suggestion would be to improve it not delete it. --Donniediamond (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read that. He is the Polish International champion, a weaker title than the national title, but I still just about say Keep especially after the victory and manner of victory over Proska. That was a very notable victory and he has become the only man to stop Proska with the exception of GGG.--Donniediamond (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that, he won both the Polish national title and the Polish International title. I have improved the article a little and I am back to Keep. --Donniediamond (talk) 13:23, 23 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) 04:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging earlier !voters for possible re-evaluation after Donniediamond's research: @Johnpacklambert:; @Papaursa:; @Mdtemp:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not meet the WP:NBOX criteria. A professional national title does not guarantee a pass.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NBOX as the title is not the national title, but even so it does not appear there is WP:SIGCOV which overrides any argument if an individual met even one of the criteria in that guideline. Mkdw ^talk 00:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Polish national title isn't a national title? And there is significant coverage, it's just that its in Polish. --Donniediamond (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on those arguing keep to substantiate their claims that there is significant coverage. The Republic of Poland Middleweight Title has only been held once in 2013 and was vacant. Even if they hold this title, all the guideline says is they're likely notable -- not that they are notable. Mkdw ^talk 19:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is routine sports reporting--fight results and announcements. No significant coverage fails the GNG. Title is one of hundreds of minor titles and the sponsoring organization isn't given so it may not even be from a major org. Jakejr (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's ranked #11 in the world by one of the 4 major ranking organisations, is ranked in the top 20 in the world by Boxrec, and there's quite a bit of Polish coverage. Clearly at a level where he should be included. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 1 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 WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German Wine Princess

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

One step down from German Wine Queen. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wine is a major German export and the German Wine Princesses are national representatives of the German wine industry. They are not merely local beauty queens but, like the Wine Queen, they are genuine experts on German wines and ambassadors for Germany in this important arm of their economy. The nom has put forward no argument for deletion other than a comparison with the Wine Queen. In practice they are a key team working for the German wine industry promoting their products at home and abroad. Bermicourt (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lack of arguments for deletion, or alternatively merge to German Wine Queen, with the option to become a standalone article again once it becomes too long. Don't see a reason to do this through AFD. —Kusma (t·c) 20:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Most "keep" opinions are quite shallowly argued, and don't address the WP:OR issue of what to consider "Poland" for the purpose of this article. But that can be editorially remedied by refocusing the list on people born in the territory of the current state of Poland. As to the broader issue of whether such country-level lists are appropriate, this discussion does not yield consensus. Sandstein 17:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish supercentenarians

AfDs for this article:

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

1. This list by definition should be empty. There was no country of Poland between 1795 and 1918, which means we will not need this article until 2028 (110 years after the founding of the modern Polish state).

2. Even if you try to redefine this as people born in the area of what is now Poland, the shifting borders and various divisions of what we call Poland make it tough to determine who should go in which country. Hence the struggle in the article to class people by region

3. It is actually a list of 1 person who was 110 at death at the top - but then a bunch of other slice and dice lists of people below. The people that don't live in Poland are counted elsewhere anyway.

4. The List of European supercentenarians covers or should cover all the "Polish" people living in Europe anyway so having this list creates unnecessary maintenance. Legacypac (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 11:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recognizing that the Europe list will have all these people, which can be searched and sorted at will. EEng (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article of Polish people and culture, not Polish official politics. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it is restricted to people born within current Poland borders, regardless of their culture or language. There is a Ukrainian on there and people that moved to other countries scores of years ago. This is a list of superold people, not about Poland. Did you want to recast your vote after looking carefully at the inclusion criteria? Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Europe is a big place. It makes more sense to split it up in to sub-divisions than to have one massive article. Also, for the last few weeks you've been arguing in favour of deleting supercentenarian biographies on the basis that "the information about these people is better presented on a list". But now you want to delete the lists! Are we going to reinstate the biographies, then? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Editors are trying to reduce the number of overlapping lists. This topic is overburdened by lists that slice and dice super old people. As things are now structured, a man born in Warsaw who moved to the US should be listed on pages for Poland, Austria-Hungary, Europe, North America, US, oldest people, oldest men, top 10 men, living or not living versions of the list, US state, and maybe 10 other places. There are not enough editors interested in maintaining the lists, or who know how they all fit together. Less lists, better organized, are part of the answer. Lists of mini bios below a reduced number of table lists are a great idea. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, editors are NOT struggling to maintain the lists. You've only been editing in the topic area for a few weeks so I don't see how you can know that. Now will you please explain how "less lists are the answer"? Wikipedia is not paper. All your suggestion will achieve is limit the amount of information available. Listing the oldest people from individual countries is of interest to people. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

We don't want to "delete the lists", just all the overlapping lists and sublists; everyone still goes on the continental lists. A smaller number of large, comprehensive lists is much better, since the reader can search and sort according to his interest, instead of according to some predefined set of slices and dices. EEng (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make such changes, how about starting a discussion on the WOP project talk page, rather than these never ending, whack-a-mole AfD discussions which are getting on everyone's nerves. I would actually like to spend some time making productive edits to these pages but instead I'm having to forever spend my time commenting in AfD's. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

If you improved the pages to get rid of the wild obvious inaccuracies the deletion efforts would be reduced. Obviously there are not enough interested editors to properly maintain so many slice and dice lists. So let's make it easier.

1. A big List of oldest living people that is sortable based on all the variables and can be updated with people that pass 110 and people that die.

2. a few Lists of people over 110 when they died by location (North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Europe) Within these articles you could have a little table extracting oldest by country in the region if desired. The regional lists would just grow as super old people die or are discovered to have already died. Mini-bios go below whichever list the person is on, with a section link from the name to the. People notable beyond a mini-bio are linked to their page.

3. Get rid off all the country, former country, men, woman, emigrant and immigrant, and other silliness lists that lead to absurd claims like the person I found who was noted as being born in both Poland AND Germany, but dying in Switzerland, and (not actually) the oldest in the EU.

This comment posted on another discussion is helpful here: "Actually, independent Poland as it existed pre-1773, 1918 to 1939, and again from 1945 to the present, includes parts of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, Nazi Third Reich, Russian Empire until 1918, Soviet Union from 1945 to 1991, Lithuania, Belorussia and Ukraine. In the last 242 years, Poland has been much larger, much smaller, and non-existent geographically. Oh, and for the record, during the partitions of Poland between 1773 and 1795, the Russian Empire got the largest slice of Poland as it existed prior to 1773. Thought you should know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)" Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I disagree with Dirtlawyer's statement that things would be different if the "wild inaccuracies" were got rid of. Even if it were completely up to date and accurate, this list (for example) would still serve no purpose, given the existence of the Europe list. EEng (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary content fork. I like EEng's and Legacypac's idea of simplifing this old people stuff. And Legacypac is correct this list has nothing to do with Polish culture, dziękuję bardzo. --Bejnar (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ollie - I can fairly draw the conclusion that editing all these lists is a problem for editors because I've now checked may lists and found serious inconsistencies all over the place. An American women found on the US list should be on the North American list, but often is not. In fact the US list is about as long as the North America list, even though it should also cover people from Canada and the Caribbean lists. You might think someone over 110 who was born in what was Austria-Hungary and shown in the Austria sublist there would be on the stand alone Austria country list, but these lists don't match - not even close. Japan has >3% of Asia's population but 100% of the super old. Yet the Asia list did not match the Japan list. It is a massive mess. The claim this universe of lists is being maintained adequately is highly misleading and should lead to enforcement of sanction for trying to mislead other editors. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of this discussion is appropriate for an AfD. This is clearly about a wider issue, not the individual articles, so take this elsewhere. And stop with the pathetic threats, I did no such thing. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Deleting inaccuate articles that duplicate other articles is very much an appropriate use of AfD. I just nominated the Czech Republic list for deletion too. You might think the managing about 6 names of people over 110 years old would be easy, but it's a mess. Much better to have fewer, but better lists. There was no threat, more a reminder there is an open case dealing with possible sanctions so it would be good to be careful not to add more evidence to it with misleading posts here. Legacypac (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT intentionally mislead anyone. Your WP:BADFAITH accusations are completely out of order. Can you please give links to specific problems that you can see, please? I have been editing in the area for two years and I have observed that articles in the scope of the project are generally well-maintained. We're dealing with a number of articles across the scope of the project, so it's more appropriate to have a discussion on the project page about how to deal with problems. Instead, you have just made a large number of significant changes to a good number of articles without looking to find consensus first. You don't WP:OWN these articles. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I've pointed out the issues with your points here. None of us OWN the articles. I'm not taking the changes required to clean up inconsistencies and proliferation of lists against WP policy personally. If you do take it personally may e a little space from the topic is needed? I was going to say the topic is not life and death but it actually is. Legacypac (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I will use the same argument as with the Czechs: It is best to try to establish a single unified list for the whole Europe. Europe has so many small countries and border changes that keeping these separate is like begging for trouble. In the 2050s they might be able to exist separately, but we do not yet have enough content to include for each and every European country. In contrast, the United States probably deserves its own article. Lets wait half a century, and then reconsider recreating this article. User:Ceosad

Well can't we have this kind of discussion all in one go, and try to establish consensus on how best to present this content, rather than in a spate of AfDs? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

the discussion is happening all at once across a few example article to establish precedence. When we have consensus we can work together to impliment it across the rest of the country articles. Some people would scream if we did not put these through AfD. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean discussion in the same place, not at the same time. You've failed to comply with WP:BEFORE. The whole thing is a total mess. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

What part of BEFORE would that be? EEng (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The part where you raise any concerns on the talk page or the project page first. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

as explained elsewhere these are test cases at AfD. Many will not accept a deletion discussion made on a project or article page. The first test case just went delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_Nordic_countries and others seem to be following. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BEFORE says, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it." Obviously that means to do so if there's any reason to think such a discussion might resolve the problem(s). That's very seldom (which is why you hardly ever see such discussions on article talk pages), and there's no reason to think such a discussion would have led anywhere other than where we are now i.e. the suggestion that the list is redundant to the Europe list -- a suggestion with which I wholeheartedly agree. EEng (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a cop out. It's a perfectly sensible idea to have a discussion on the project page where involved editors can express their views as to how this information should be displayed (i.e. do people support having individual country articles or one big European article). Instead, what will no doubt happen is that the articles for the smaller countries will be deleted but the ones for the larger countries will be kept, leaving us with just a few countries left, which is a mess. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three similar discussions just closed as delete in the last couple hours and the others are trending that way. I would nom all the country lists all together but past group noms I've done on pageant winners were poorly received, so we go one by one starting from the most poorly considered articles. There are old and new tags all over WOP titles and yet the confusion between lists continues - so BEFORE has been tried. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can still discuss these issues on talk pages or project pages! AfDs aren't always the first place to turn. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriately notable standalone list of individuals from Poland who resided or moved from that country. Alansohn (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps now a European list is still somewhat manageable. But more and more people reach a very advanced age. Europe is very huge and if you start to delete lists of separate countries, soon you wont see the trees through the forest anymore. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus the forest. Cutting the trees now and recreate them in 2050 is not a great idea. Once a tree is cut its gone for good. Petervermaelen (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

I think you should review the meaning of the idiom forest for the trees. EEng (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update related very similar articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians born in the Russian_Empire, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercentenarians born in Austria-Hungary have now closed as delete. The sister articles on Caribbean and Nordic Countries were also deleted. The same arguments used here were used on those 4 with good effect. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update very similar article List of Czech supercentenarians was just deleted based on the same rational as advanced here. Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention that very similar article List of Australian supercentenarians was just kept based on the same rational as advanced here.--Kachelus (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

List of Australian supercentenarians just closed so not fair to say I missed it. It covers a different situation outside Europe. Editors might also note the flood of Single Purpose Accounts, even worse then on this one.

Note to Closer Ollie's conduct in this discussion was a factor in his new topic ban [21]. I don't want to grave dance, but that may be a valid factor to consider when assessing opinions in a close here, especially given the volume of comments he made on this AfD. Legacypac (talk) 10:45, 24 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) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with other users.--Inception2010 (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Delete a unified list makes sense from a practical standpoint. Managing multiple lists with similar content is just busy work. Blackmane (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because the list is needed. and appropriate as it makes it easier for readers to find specific information.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ why is this list "needed"? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682 I stated it in my reasoning for Keep just above.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As little of a fan I am of these articles, AFD is not cleanup. If there's an issue with the definition of Poland, that's best for an RFC or other dispute resolution, not deletion. There exists a Poland today and so there is at least a possibility of keeping a list of the oldest people in Poland. Second, if there's little names here due entirely to the definition of Poland and the idea is to merge this into a single Europe article, again, AFD is not cleanup. Propose merger of all the small national articles and then deal with merging them, once there's some consensus to support that, then any attempts to create/recreate these pages can rightfully be taken to AFD. I don't see any indication that any of the other pages in Template:Longevity for current nations (as opposed to Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire ones) have been successfully deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czech was recently deleted, just closed faster then this discussion. There were no Hungary, or Russian articles outside the deleted one, they were amalgamations of various current countries lists. Plus Austria used to exist but was merged. [Nordic Countries] was deleted recently. List of Benelux supercentenarians was Prod deleted fairly recently. Brazil and Japan were merged up to South America and Asia respectively. Switzerland was deleted again recently. We need one Europe list. Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again you forgot to mention, that List of Australian supercentenarians, also nominated for deletion a few weeks ago, was kept.--Kachelus (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australia had or has 26 names and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian supercentenarians was largely of question of keeping or merging to Oceania. Czech is probably a better example as it had basically a single leftover person when looking at the actual nation as it is, same as Poland here. Nevertheless, I think we first need a RFC on all nations on whether or not we use historic location or just those born in the place of the current nation and I'm not sure I'd agree with Legacypac's focus on people born in Poland proper. It's no different than dealing with say, old civilizations or people: was someone really a Category:2nd-century Indian people when India didn't exist in the 2nd century? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, Ricky81682. It was my intention not to tell only about the deleted pages, and most of them I preferred to delete, too, but also to say, there is with Australia one case the users wanted to keep that. So every participant of the discussion here can decide what he or she wants: Vote for deletion and look for arguments of that like the Benelux or Russian Empire way, or vote for keeping and look for arguments for that like the Australian way. It is not fair, just to hide the cases that are against the own intention. That's it what I want to say, nothing else.--Kachelus (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This AfD has been relisted twice, with no clear consensus emerging with regard to deleting, keeping, or redirecting. Further relisting does not seem likely to result in such a consensus. Deor (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Poss

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

Is being a German Wine Queen notable? I think not. (Beer Queen maybe ...) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The answer is clearly "yes". Wine is a major German export and the German Wine Queen is the national representative of the German wine industry. She is not some local beauty queen, but an expert on German wines and an ambassador for Germany in this important arm of their economy. The article is well referenced too. The nom has put forward no argument for deletion other than stating an opinion and making the questionable suggestion that a beer queen would be notable by comparison. Bermicourt (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage focuses on crowning and background, no evidence of this claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, winner of a longstanding and important product queen title that comes with large amounts of national media coverage. (The beer queens have been introduced recently, but are of much lower notability). Wine is of much greater cultural importance than beer in the wine-producing regions of Germany. —Kusma (t·c) 18:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article Updated. I have added more detail about Poss's role as Germany's national wine representative, fully referenced. No doubt there is more that could be added as the article is expanded, but it gives an indication of the role and it's international importance for Germany and the German wine industry. Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to German Wine Queen. I don't dispute the notability of the title but, for most of the recipients, there is nothing notable about them other than the title itself. A major exception, of course, is Julia Klöckner, whose article offers an instructive contrast with the instant article. In Klockner's article, her tenure as Wine Queen takes up only a single sentence. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 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 02:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to German Wine Queen. Curro2 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:N, WP:GNG by a wide margin. Quis separabit? 05:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Odd, don't you think, to consider the representative of the German Wine Industry as less notable than, say, a fourth tier English league football player? Bermicourt (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto the title article. 4th tier ball players are a different problem. Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable crown. and per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BabbaQ. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough coverage to meet guidelines, though "German Wine Queen" does sound a dubious claim to fame!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSQL-JDBC

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

nn software - üser:Altenmann >t 04:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no reason to keep this Information as the driver has been replaced by more advanced and up to date drivers. The information on this page is also of questionable notability as the only thing that seems even remotely noteworthy is it was the first JDBC Driver which has no real source to prove the statement. All this combined with the lack of Information leads me to believe there is no point in keeping this. Andrdema (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The one ref is to a book by the author of the software, and in any case is an incidental mention. A search turned up forum posts and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G1. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshwanth ln

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

No importance, I also did research on this person and did not find evidence the person existed. Seems like an A7 (No indication of significance). TheJack15 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baquli

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

This page violates WP:NOTADICTIONARY TheJack15 (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 06:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. Not an encyclopedic topic. sst✈^(discuss) 06:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY. -- 山村貞子 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Salt-N-Pepa. If anyone feels there's anything worth merging here, feel free. Michig (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latoya Hanson

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

Singer who is unnotable without her group. She produced some singles that went nowhere. The rest is non-essential information that is trivial at best. ALongStay (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 06:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with reasoning above, the article is mostly about her more notable group. Alone, she has not had any accomplishments to constitute a stand-alone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I also question the article's solidity as there's nothing to suggest an otherwise better article and I would've also suggested moving to the group's article but, considering she was only there for one year with no noticeably major impact, perhaps not. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Salt-N-Pepa - she was part of a group that during her tenure was nominated for a Grammy Award. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per CrazyAces489. Best to keep the title as a redirect, as if it's deleted, no doubt someone else will crated it again. BTW, I do wish that some AfD's would just have merge tags used instead of AfD, save a lot of drama. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:21, 28 December 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. Michig (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romario Lendor

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

Only 15 years old and clearly fails the requirements of WP:NFOOTY. I see no indication of in-depth coverage meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Has not played in a fully-professional league or senior international football, thus also fails WP:NFOOTY. Just WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with Jkudlick Spiderone 18:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. JTtheOG (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt. See my comments below and at the last AfD. Given the guy's draw as a potential target, I'd recommend that any further attempts to create the article have some extremely substantial coverage in very solidly reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat Saves The Kids

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

The movie that the article describes is not relevant enough nor has spawned enough events to deserve a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MashedPotatoGrenade (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 December 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After doing a search for any WP:RS that would prove notability, I only found one article, an opinion piece, that related to this movie. It certainly doesn't seem to fit any notability criteria. Lithorien (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cool Cat Saves the Kids. I'm going to close this one early for the same reasons: basically, this video doesn't pass NFILM and to make matters worse, the guy reacted poorly to some YouTube reviews and ended up gaining an Encyclopedia Dramatica page in the process. We don't necessarily delete pages based on the likelihood that it'll be vandalized, but it does add an extra reason for this page to be deleted. I'm going to salt both entries. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, following work by Rhododendrites. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Zhou

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

Self-promotion. A primary contributor is User:周玲安. Mys_721tx (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not start this article. The editor who created this article as "BettyZhou" is Jqcc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The editor has been notified of this discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as, although the list of sources, none of the current article suggests even minimally better notability and improvement here, with my searches also finding nothing better than what seemed to be mostly passing mentions. Nothing compelling to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Obvious self-promotion, but googling her Chinese name reveals that she has some recognizability among die-hard NBA fans in China. Her Chinese social media pages also demonstrate quite a following (e.g. Instagram Sina Weibo). Keep page if all the junk on the page can be weeded out; I do realize it's much easier said than done. Timmyshin (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete WP:TNT. Der yck C. 21:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revise She is very notable in China. However the page is too detailed for a character like her. Unsourced and unverified contents should be deleted. Ueutyi (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now -she only has one notable credit and its for a minor role. Looks like she will be hosting her own series, but I think this article is getting ahead of itself and is way too grand/promotional -it should be a single paragraph and a filmography if anything at all Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If my mom were also my publicist, she would write the sort of article that existed at the time of nomination. That said, there are nearly sufficient sources in English to justify WP:BIO, and it looks like there are a whole lot of non-English sources such that I'm confident she's notable. I cut it from 54,000 bytes of gushing to 3,500 bytes of basic information, then added a bit. In other words, I effectively carried out a WP:TNT (perhaps those leaning towards that outcome would reconsider?). Is it a good article? Not particularly, no. But I think she's a notable person, the article no longer contains any unsourced or promotional material, and it seems worth keeping as it stands. I'll keep it on my watchlist, though, because holy crap. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mys 721tx, SwisterTwister, Deryck Chan, and Burroughs'10: does your position change any, given my quasi-TNT? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per well needed deletions performed by Rhododendrites. AIRcorn (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new version by User:Rhododendrites. Thank you. Der yck C. 11:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhodendendrites -- good work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new version satisfies notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Also because of "Sensual NBA." Really?TheBlueCanoe 23:36, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Artists Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement

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

No real evidence that this contract is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of the article appears to be a very notable contract. Nominator, if you had looked closely, there is no how you will not see New York Times, A People's Art History of the United States: 250 Years of Activist written by Nicholas Lampert, Art of the Deal: Contemporary Art in a Global Financial Market -written by Noah Horowitz, this one in JSTOR, American Artist--Written by Ernest William Watson, The Deskbook of Art Law, Law, Ethics, and the Visual Arts to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a perfect article, but I'm convinced of notability by the entry in the Guggenheim blog (which, in spite of being a blog post is an official publication of the G), which shows an archival copy of the agreement and says "it was adopted internationally and continues to be a standard artist agreement form today." LaMona (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now only if it can actually be improved as the current article is not what it could be. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to the lack of participation in this discussion. (non-admin closure) Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mijares

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

Fails general notability. Ireneshih (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a lot of information on News (CBS Miami, Haute Living, Miami Herald, Elite Daily)

Top Up-And-Coming Visual Artists In South Florida (CBS Miami)[22]--27century (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: barely skirts by GNG by WP:ARTIST. Delta13C (talk) 16:15, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Riverboat Gamblers

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

The PROD was removed so here we are and I still confirm and echo my PROD: "My searches found no considerably better than some mostly local coverage at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam, but perhaps not enough for a better encyclopedia article.". I found no convincingly better notability and improvement aside from them being locally known (I'm from this area and I'm not familiar with them). SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If no one comments until December 25, I would appreciate this being relisted a third time so hopefully users can give this better attention. I simply hate "no consensuses".... SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted a third time per nominator's request. Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I would have tossed this in the delete pile except for the inclusion of the band in games and extensive touring that they appear to have done. Lots of local/regional coverage as well. Lithorien (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the previously discussed reasons. Also a side-test I do, they have practically no followers on Social Media which indicates they are small time at best. Their youtube channel has s ~770 subs. Aeonx (talk) 16:58, 26 December 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth British Virgin Islands

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

Is a National beauty pageant winner always notable? I submit NO. They had 1 event back in 2013 with 6 girls in gowns and swimsuits. The facebook page [23] and wix website (56 visitors to date?) barely confirm the existence of this "organization" and the rest of the mentions are press releases, an expired fundraising campaign [24] etc with this post [25] being the best source I could find. Some of the claims in the very short article are not true or dubious (headquarters location, traditionally how it works (with one event to date) etc. Delete this or every local parade, bake sale, and soccer game qualifies for a WP article its very own. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as there's hardly even much of an article here and it hasn't changed much since starting in April 2014 so that certainly says something. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis P. Tarnow

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

Very weak references, none of which give any independent notability. He appears to be a good dentist but little more. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save Ha! He's only the most famous dentist alive! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; with a lot more accomplished and more refs then your typical pageant winner. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent, reliable sources. Most sources here are directly related to him -- Dental society directories, a press release, and at least one article (Global Health News) that says nothing about him. I also do not think that he meets wp:academic. LaMona (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as none of this seems to solidly satisfy the notability guidelines. Notifying DGG who is familiar with these health subject areas. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 [26]. The Distinguished Lecturer Award may also be enough. It would also be interesting to include material about his move from NYU to Columbia, purportedly because he believed that some of the school's actions were unethical [27], but we would need better sources than a blog post for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Heads Mission

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources for this festival. I'm getting a lot of thing like blogs, forums, and WP:ROUTINE coverage, enough to WP:VERIFY that it exists, but not enough to establish notability per the WP:GNG. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. unless someone can find substantial coverage in Ukrainian press. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and restart later as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I must agree it fails WP:GNG unless someone is able to point out something I missed in my search for in depth coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:09, 2 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Low Pressings

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

Nonnotable music "label" tagged since 2011 - üser:Altenmann >t 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable and is not referenced in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemingly unlikely notable especially given its history so there wouldn't have been much. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 29 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Ludwig

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

This player fails all notability criteria for ice hockey players. Iheartthestrals (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as perhaps nothing better for a notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately he falls just short of passing WP:NHOCKEY and a quick search on him doesn't make it look like he can pass GNG either as the articles that mention him are just routine sports coverage. Deadman137 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the "Personal" section of Craig Ludwig. That section should also be updated, possibly through merging some of the material from this article (e.g., his NHL draft status). Rlendog (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - fails GNG and NHOCKEY. Also opposed to redirecting. Reso lute 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also oppose redirect. Information presented is not relevant to father's page. Another link: Tyler Ludwig deletion discussion. Thanks. Iheartthestrals {talk) 00:58, 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) 23:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Prince (ice hockey)

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

Non-notable amateur ice hockey player. Disputed prod by saying it meets #6 of NHOCKEY. However WP:NHOCKEY #6 refers to the championships level of the World Championships. He only played in the Division 1b level. Also can only find mention of him in routine coverage so does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he ever meets GNG or NHOCKEY. - DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: College hockey player without especial distinction. Only the Nottingham Post cite meets the GNG. Ravenswing 17:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ample list of sources but simply nothing for solider notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deadman137 (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Reso lute 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus was that the links addressing the subject and the subject's music did not constitute the substantial and independent coverage needed for notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Hollygrove

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Many links to itun or trivial mention in barely notable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Many link are notable links including itunes and apple music pages. He is also a DJ on a corporate radio station Nawnsens (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Magnolia677's reasoning as well as the previous AfD on the same subject. Lithorien (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Sources are pretty much limited to sites where you can download the subject's music and co-hosting a show on a local radio station does not confer notability. Hut 8.5 11:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again I disagree siting 1. from WP:MUSICBIO stating that 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. This artist has had different release that are "independent of the musician" which i believe that these releases fall under that <ref>http://sosouth.com/detaildownload.php?ID=11221 |title= OG RON C &THE CHOPSTARS PRESENT</ref> I also site 7. from the same WP:MUSICBIO which states and I quote "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" Example 1<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chopstars |title= THE CHOPSTARS</ref> Example 2<ref>http://sosouth.com/detaildownload.php?ID=11221 |title= OG RON C &THE CHOPSTARS PRESENT</ref>

Example 3 <ref>http://schedule.sxsw.com/2015/2015/events/event_MS33299 |title= OG RON C & THE CHOPSTARS</ref> Those are just a few of many links that not only back up numbers 1 & 7 from the requirements, that this DJ who is apart of The Chopstars which have been features in NY times, Revolt (TV channel) and more is more than qualifed

Nawnsens (talk) 03:20, 26 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - (I have added "nowikis" to keep the above comment from spilling off the page).

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "siting 1"? Also, I scrutinized each of the citations listed.

The first, titled "This Shit Here Nigga Vol. 11 [OG Ron C & The Chopstars Present", is just a promo site to buy records. Not a reliable source, plus, it just mentions his name. No bio.

The next, is a Wikipedia site.

The next is a repeat of the first source you listed.

Finally, this link doesn't even mention Mr. Hollygrove.

Again, I don't agree that he's "more than qualifed (sic)" for an article yet. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Clearly, this doesn't pass either WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 2 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, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Mann

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

I can find absolutely no good sources to support the article, and the present references do not discuss him in any detail except for his own website. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than a few links here and there. Notifying tagger JJMC89. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I didn't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails GNG. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 23:21, 1 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul G. Boyle

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

Files WP:FILMMAKER. This person has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his field. The article discusses mental health issues, criminal behavior, and the winning of a non-notable film festival award. A search for reliable sources to support these statements was not successful. The article had been nominated for deletion on Nov. 8, 2009, but the nomination was deleted two days later without any improvement made to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly much here at all and nearly speedy material thus this simply suggests the signs of even minimal notability happening here. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is compelling enough a claim of notability to override the paucity of reliable source coverage; I did a search on both "Paul G. Boyle" and "Paul Boyle", and found just one news article by which the sourcing could be even slightly improved, which isn't enough considering that the one source already present here is supporting a statement that has no bearing whatsoever on his notability or lack thereof. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It would certainly be nice if someone found uses in the article for all those sources (such as his having a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame). Deor (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Laboe

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

Delete: as vanity article; doesn't meet notability threshold. Quis separabit? 01:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at best given the sourcing. Delete - The current article simply seems to suggest a locally known DJ, nothing else especially for a better encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete - Contrary to the two previous opinions, subject of entry is known to a wide-spread audience that reaches across several generations of radio-listeners throughout California, Arizona, and Southern Nevada, due to his popular syndicated call-in radio program. The fact that he is currently 90 years-old (as of Decemeber 2015) and still broadcasting every weeknight is only one interesting fact that would be lost should this entry be erased. Art Laboe is part of the heritage of the western U.S.'s radio history. See http://artlaboe.com/Radio.html for sample of listener audience scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.148.50 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but NPOV/refimprove: He started indie label Original Sound, is/was nationally syndicated, and has a large number of significant book and news mentions as a pioneer of radio including this chapter, this story, and his own day in LA City and County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydronium Hydroxide (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 January 2016‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In addition to the sources cited above, a very quick search revealed these 3 pieces in Billboard that he was the subject of: here, here, and here. J04n(talk page) 18:59, 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) 14:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramananda Prasad

AfDs for this article:

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

No real claim of notability beyond translating a much-translating book and founding a society with no real notability claims. Been marked for notability for 7 years. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG. Someone with a similar name, Ramananda Prasad Singh, may be notable, but I think it's a different person. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What would be needed here is evidence that his translation of the Bhagavad Gita is the standard one, or particular well thought of and widely read; alternatively, that he's notable as a civil engineer. Neither information seems available. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's not yet a better notable article here. Notifying 1st AfDer and nominator Boleyn. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite looking extensively, I couldn't verify his notability, and neither has anyone else in the 8 years that this has been tagged for notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe special awards

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

Side show from Miss Universe. Unsourced and to my opinion fancruft. The Banner talk 01:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete to rip off some points by User:FeatherPluma on a similar AfD I started... This material is technically unverifiable because its sourcing is unknown and the sourcing is unretrievable on attempting a reasonable search. Technically, unless an editorially reviewed journalist were to compile this in a proper WP:RS, and no actual journalist would bother, only the organization itself could hope to generate or maintain a correct list that corresponds to its organizational rules and procedures, which can change (and actually have) over time. The sole purpose of this table is commercial promotion. The organization itself or a fan site could opt to host any definitive official data they wish to maintain for their commercial purposes but in my searches, the pageant businesses don't care enough about past results to keep such lists available to the public on their websites, so why should we? Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information should be in the main Miss Universe page. It should not be a stand alone article Seasider91 (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the note that this article serves a purpose for people interested in knowing these facts. Sources needs to be improved definitely but that is not a reasoning for deletion. The list is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - information of the prizes is not in the official website of Miss Universe. therefore it is part of the history of the pageant and do not propaganda. They are still in force this awards. • Evanex (talk) 04:3, 04 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do not call it propaganda, I call it fancruft. Not even the official website of Miss Universe mentions it, so why does it need a separate article? The Banner talk 11:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see three strong policy based deletes and one ILIkEIT vote, that is more then many AfDs get so why the relist? Legacypac (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since all of this information is unverifiable, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. For all we know, much of the page has been made up, and nobody would know. That makes this list useless. Since the pageant itself does not keep records, per the editors above, then the information remains unverifiable. I did search the site and various mentions of special awards come up, but not in any organized manner and generally as a series of captions to pictures. Regardless, those pages are not reliable or independent of the source, and demonstrates that this page fails the WP:GNG. If individual special awards can be verified, they can be added to the year's page in question. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:23, 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. Michig (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B2B Payments

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

Personal essay, no references provided, not written from a neutral POV BOVINEBOY2008 01:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written in essay style, no sources. Topic could be covered in the Business-to-business article -- I see nothing unique about payments compared to other b2b functions. LaMona (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is hardly solidly an acceptable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as personal essay on the topic of business to business Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as has no sources to support. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Israel. The delete !vote is basically a redirect and the keep !vote is made up bollocks (there is no consensus to keep any of them!) so redirect it is (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maayan Keren

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ONEEVENT According to Miss_World_2015#Withdrawals she never competed in Miss World 2015, making her appear in just one event, a preliminary round. The Banner talk 01:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:15MOF and WP:NOPAGE this should be redirected to the appropriate list of pageant winners. Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per international WP consensus that winning Miss 'Country' is enough notability for a WP page. Miss Israel is not a 'prelimenary round' it is the national beauty pageant. See List of Miss USA titleholders and Miss France where similar pageant members evidently have a separate page. Shuki (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What consensus? The Banner talk 22:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Israel. Unless there's something encyclopedic to be stated beyond the fact that she won the Miss Israel contest then a redirect is sufficient. --Michig (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Israel. Delta13C (talk) 09:06, 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 no consensus. The "delete" side argues this junction is nondescript but the "keep" side say it's special; the "delete" side says this doesn't pass WP:GNG but didn't convincingly address the conventions on coverage of highways that were invoked by he "keep" side. Der yck C. 21:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Oranienburg

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny that such interchanges somehow managed to get published on Wikipedia. Maybe I can get by with writing an article on the road in front of my house. Delete. MgWd (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)MgWd[reply]

Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. 68.231.77.22 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) - I apparently was logged out while editing. This comment is mine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to do with WP:BIAS and everything to do with the fact that as every interchange on the Autobahn is named, being a named interchange on the Autobahn does not indicate a special status and thus notability, whereas in (for example) England, they do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails to assert notability in line with WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobahn interchanges are all named; there is no significant inference of notability from the mere fact that it is a named interchange. There is no apparent evidence that this meets WP:GNG. These should probably be part of a list - there would be no objection to redirects to the individual Autobahns' pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that User:Meltingwood hits the nail on the head when he/she says, "Maybe I can get by with writing an article on the road in front of my house." The WMF says yes! yes! and leaves en.wikipedia to clean up the resulting mess that arrives from around the world. Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator states that this intersection is just like thousands of others, yet given the map in the article and some WP:UCS, I think that this is not something that a reasonable person would say. A quick look at some references, and I've found that www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/designGuide/CH_7.pdf page 7-14 states, "Interchanges with loops in all four quadrants are referred to as full cloverleafs and all others are referred to as partial cloverleafs." So the interchange under consideration is a form of a partial cloverleaf, and I for one cannot say that I've ever before seen one like it. I also looked at the talk page and see that the nominator has not tried to engage in a discussion about the alternatives to deletion before binding the time of AfD volunteers with an AfD nomination. I'll incorporate by reference all of the comments I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: partial cloverleaf interchanges are incredibly common. In my experience, they're more common than the full cloverleaf now. Various agencies have found that by removing some of the ramps from a full cloverleaf that the interchange works better for the traffic on the freeway by eliminating the weave–merge conflicts between traffic exiting and entering at the interchange. Imzadi 1979 → 13:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if the nominator is going to say that this interchange is "just like thousands of others", and you are going to use the words "incredibly common", it might help to start with showing one. I don't have the research resources to begin this search. Do you? We have an article on Partial cloverleaf interchange, but the examples tend to be balanced, certainly not like this one. Also, the article says that there were also gradient issues in the design. Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just another unremarkable interchange. If they were British, they should be deleted as well. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to make a deletion argument? Is "unremarkable" a WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument? If so, what metric can editors use to know whether their new article will be considered proper under Wikipedia policy? I'd hope that any response you make would explain why this topic and its content are so bad that they must be deleted rather than merged. Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as per WP:DEL8 - lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to have it in Wikijargon: there's no claim to notability and nothing in the article suggesting same. Interchanges are not inherently notable. Mangoe (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And please also watch the discussion on WikiProjects Highways page, --Chandler321 (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a rationale for keeping this particular interchange would be nice. Your comments on the highway page are nice, but generic, and do not speak to the concept of the notability of individual interchanges. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, tried to keep it short. You can find my full arguments within the discussion about Kreuz Stuttgart --Chandler321 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No worries. It's just that your comments on the that talk page don't specifically address the issue with this particular article, which is that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'per DGG. Just see all London subway-stations that are covered.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As has been pointed out in other AfD discussions, there is a large difference between subway stations and interchanges. Also, this still does not address the lack of notability of this particular interchange. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that is true. Most interchanges usually are larger constructions than subway stations. However, my guess is that is not what you mean. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:15, 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 redirect to Bundesautobahn 44 with {{R with possibilities}}. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Kassel-Süd

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers AEnglish-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And as mentioned elsewhere, if it was British it would, as a named interchange, be extremely likely to be notable. Named interchanges in Germany are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and have to be judged vis-a-vis GNG on other merits. WP:CSB does not mean letting non-notable content into the encyclopedia just because it's "not from the English-speaking areas". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no language bias taking place here, why is it that in a dozen AfD's I've worked, not a single delete !vote has reported either reading the German references or looking for sources on Google. The fact that they don't talk about how they got the article's references translated from German indicates to me that as a group they've not looked at the references. Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for "letting non-notable content" into the encyclopedia, see WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Furthermore, these Kreuz's and Dreieck's are already covered in our encyclopedia. What do you mean by the words "letting non-notable content into the encyclopedia"? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails to assert notability in line with WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. As mentioned above and elsewhere, Autobahn interchanges are invariably named and, therefore, have no special presumption of notability from their status. There is no apparent evidence that this interchange passes WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. In relation to this interchange in particular, it is an unusual one for global political reasons, in that it was designed and partially constructed to be a two part four way interchange, but its completion was prevented by the Cold War division of Germany; plans for the network were later changed and the interchange modified accordingly. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these Kreuz's and Dreieck's are topics proper in the encyclopedia as either redirects to one of the two related Autobahn articles, or as standalone articles, and this is primarily a decision of those maintaining the articles. This particular interchange has 2004 history of the name change along with the associated controversy, as well as there is 2014 material available from hna.de regarding route changes. Unscintillating (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the last two keep !votes offer no valid argument based on policy for those, just more trivial mentions and routine coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 January 2016‎

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. Sandstein 17:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Kaiserberg

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an interchange between one of Germany's most important Autobahns and one of its busiest and most congested. Each of the Autobahns has an article of its own on at least 10 different Wikipedias (including English Wikipedia), and each links Germany with at least one neighbouring country. The interchange is of an unusual design, and is located within the Ruhrgebiet, which is the largest urban agglomeration in Germany. The interchange is also already the subject of standalone articles on three other Wikipedias. All of these easily ascertainable matters indicate that the interchange is clearly notable, regardless of how much non-Wikipedia coverage it may have in the English or even the German language. The fact that this article has been nominated for deletion is therefore clear evidence of systemic bias on the part of the nominator and any editor who might choose to support the nomination. It follows that the nomination is contrary to English Wikipedia policy. More generally, see also my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion mentioned by DGG also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. The lack of AGF on the part of Bahnfrend is disconcerting, and patently false. There is no systemic bias, there was simply a case of an over-abundance of non-notable interchanges on German freeways. Prods and AfD's have been initiated on those appropriate in other countries as well, it is simply that there wasn't this super-abundance of non-notable articles in those countries. Simply a case of not meeting WP:GNG, nothing more. An article existing in other Wikipedia's is not a valid reason for inclusion here, as each Wikipedia has different standards of inclusion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response:

This nomination is clearly a bad faith nomination intended to pursue an editorial line persistently and unreasonably hostile to certain types of articles, namely articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany. The nomination is therefore also disruptive editing, which is grounds for an editor to be blocked or banned. For a start, the nomination falsely states that the previous nomination failed "solely for procedural reasons". In fact, the true reason for that nomination's failure was "no consensus", which is a substantive reason, not a procedural reason. What's more, to the extent that the failure was procedural, the procedural reason was (to quote one of the comments in that nomination) "lack of research done by nominator". It follows that the present nominator's statement that the previous nomination failed "solely for procedural reasons" is not only false, but would be misleading even if it were literally true.

In response to the failure of the previous nomination, the (different) nominator of this nomination (who is peddling the same disruptive line) has then nominated this particular article without doing any further research, and on the basis of another false statement, namely that the subject matter of the article is "just like thousands of others."

As to the falsity of the statement, anyone taking even a brief look at the map displayed in this article would notice immediately that the design of the interchange it describes is both complex and unique, and that the interchange is therefore accurately described in the first sentence of the lede as a spaghetti junction. The interchange, which is actually referred to by Germans as "den „Spaghetti-Knoten“" ("the Spaghetti Junction" - see the source linked below) is therefore clearly not "just like thousands of others", as the nominator must well have known all along.

As to the absence of any further research, a cursory online search using the links above reveals that the intersection is one of the busiest and most famous in the whole of Germany. For example, it is described in Bild, the biggest selling newspaper in the world published outside Asia, as both "the Spaghetti Junction" and "the cult interchange", and it also has numerous non trivial online references in various other prominent online German media sources, including Die Welt, Die Zeit (two of the most respected newspapers in Germany) and Rheinische Post (the leading newspaper in the Duisburg area). Amongst other things, the sources identify by name the two engineers who designed the interchange; they also comment that its unique design has inspired a variety of artworks and cultural activities (described in detail in the sources, eg this one - Rheinische Post), and was dictated by several factors, including the very cramped nature of the site and the configurations of the Autobahns it connects. The sources also indicate that the interchange is the end point of one of the most congested stretches of Autobahn in Germany.

The article therefore clearly passes GNG, as would be obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the German online media industry, one of the most prominent in the world (and which can easily be translated into English by Google Translate for those who can't read German but who, unlike the nominator, are not affected by systemic bias).

The administrator who closed the previous, failed, nomination commented that "Maybe some [of] the less important ones could be nominated individually". The nominator has responded to that comment by nominating this article, which must surely be about one of the most important ones. Which is yet further evidence of disruptive editing.

In light of the fact that this nomination is disruptive, clearly based on no research at all, and is one of a block of similar nominations that must similarly be based on a total lack of research, the editor who nominated it is undoubtedly disruptively editing, and I therefore call on that editor to withdraw this nomination and all similar nominations immediately. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails to establish notability inline with WP:GNG. Just because this has a name does not provide an assumption of notability because every interchange in Germany is named. Other language editions of Wikipedia can have stricter or less strict inclusion requirements than us, so the presence or absence of articles there should have no bearing on whether we have an article here. Imzadi 1979 → 21:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: For the reasons I have just given above in response to Onel5969, this nomination (and also the previous, failed, nomination, which I note was nominated by you) is an example of disruptive editing, and the subject matter of this article clearly passes GNG. Indeed, the fact that you describe it as failing GNG when searches using the links above very quickly establish that it passes GNG with flying colours strongly suggest that you are making that assertion without regard to whether it is true or false, which is yet another example of disruptive editing. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this particular interchange is notable. Friendly advice to Bahnfrend: Please abandon your combative attitude and assumptions of bad faith regarding other editors. You are damaging your own cause. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and nothing you mentioned comes remotely close. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note that elsewhere he flat-out says that disruptive editing is vandalism - which Wikipedia policy explicitly calls out as not the case. I'm in agreement with Cullen328 here, Bahnfriend - please take a deep breath and step away for a cup of tea. Then come back and engage with a little good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being part of a large AfD closed for procedural reasons is not a reason to bind the time of AfD volunteers. This seems to be saying that the article got away, and needs to be captured and brought back to justice. Articles are created with an assumption of good faith, and do not need the permission of AfD volunteers to exist. The claim that this intersection is like "thousands of others" leads me to wonder if the nominator looked at the article. There is no explanation in the nomination for why admin tools are needed. Regarding the mention of a previous Afd for Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, one of the statements there was, "the information is clearly non-controversial and verifiable, and if an article is not warranted for a particular item, it should be merged into the corresponding larger articles rather than deleted." The nomination argument that this topic is "non-notable" does not reflect the basic concept of notability on Wikipedia...roads in Western civilization receive on-going and in-depth attention from multiple layers of government, cartographers, and news media. The existence of potholes can remove elected officials. Arguments at AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. Unscintillating (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike virtually all of the other Autobahn interchange AfDs, there appears to be sufficient available data here to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met by this interchange. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 2 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 Gasoline (band). Sam Walton (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thurber T. Mingus

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:BAND. Attempts to inherit notability via associations with other notably artists. | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is questionably independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gasoline (band). An article isn't justified here but a redirect is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gasoline (band). Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gasoline (band). Not enough to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 2 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 01:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpjack (band)

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

Local band, fails WP:BAND. Attempts to inherit notability through associations with other bands. | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is another case of nothing currently to suggest a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little coverage found. Nothing to suggest inclusion is warranted. --Michig (talk) 09:31, 1 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) Ya sh ! 02:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Brum

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

According to the article the subject was Miss World 1980 for 18 hours. The only source does not actually name the subject (seems to be for the next or two years later). Fansite speculation [28] does not help notability. There is some RS coverage out there but this seems like someone that had a couple days of fame for quitting and does not warrent an article, [29]. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article as it stands requires sourcing and expansion to be viable, but I find the idea that an unusual event like the sudden resignation makes her inherently less notable rather odd. Artw (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking length of rein equals barely held the position, but one might argue it gave her more notability for being the vanishing queen. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the last clause of Legacypac's last comment: "it gave her more notability for being the vanishing queen". Reliable sources are not that hard to find: [30], [31], [32], [33]. She was soon featured in Playboy (magazine) on the cover, with a headline of "Miss World for a Day: World-Class Photos of the Beauty Who Walked Out on the Title". (Playboy cover) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments and sources. Artw (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not a clean-up service or a request service for attention of an article. This is a clearly notable person with a bad article. Those two factors does not mean non-notable but the opposite. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Metropolitan90's sources. It's also extremely likely that there are additional German-language sources out there if anyone wanted to bother to look for them. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Avikzar}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brodhead III}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. S. Jennsen}}<!--Relisted-->