Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 26: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:29, 26 December 2015

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 December	27 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK 1. Also suggested deletion by speedy deletion criteria Wikipedia:CSD A1 and just all around false. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uvuru-agada

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

Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article Alvin the Almighty (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure how you consider this to be "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" — it's quite explicitly about "a community in Uzo Uwani LGA, Enugu State, Nigeria". If your concern is about the article's short size, this isn't a reason for deletion, it's perfectly reasonable to keep it as a stub. If it's about the subject's notability, then per WP:GEOLAND "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". A cursory glance on Google reveals sufficient evidence that the place does actually exist. I've just edited the article to add an infobox & co-ordinates too. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. A quick Google search confirms its existence as a named populated place. Also, this is not the first nomination from this editor where he has been reminded of GEOLAND in cases such as this and to continue to bring these to Afd seems to be WP:POINTy behaviour and rather a waste of time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:55, 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 keep. WP:NOTBURO - typo fixed, issue resolved, discussion closed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaisalmer railway stadium

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

There is nothing by this name in Jaisalmer town. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the article title is a simple typo and should be moved to Jaisalmer railway station. Maybe the article creator, Jaywardhan009, would join the discussion? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Jaisalmer railway station. Yes, it certainly was. I've boldly moved it to the correct title as it is obvious from the text that this is what is meant, and suggest we CLOSE as the article can now simply be kept: there's definitely a railway station in the town. The version with the typo might as well stay as a redirect, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 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. Nakon 02:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freishia Bomanbehram

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

No signs of notability as for now plus the refs given had no significant coverages for it. Better getting deleted. SuperHero ● Ping ● ★ 10:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as none of this seems to fully satisfy actors notability guidelines, with only having a few works so far. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hosting own show on major national network; http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/radio-and-tv/travelling-to-amreeka/article5732760.ece , http://goodtimes.ndtv.com/tv-shows/hangout-amreeka-760 , plus acting career (see http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-pyaar-vyaar-or-friends-1001033 from 2005, for example) --Soman (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article only has IMDB sources and probably the actress is only known for hosting one show and other non notable projects. Soman SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable actress. Way too soon, at best. Quis separabit? 02:44, 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. Nakon 02:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bidyadhar Mahanta

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

Unelected political candidate and no significant press coverage found. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, whilst perhaps not enough for WP:POLITICIAN, [1] states that he is secretary of the CPI district unit. --Soman (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely satisfying politicians guidelines yet. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement with Twisted Sister. Let's flush this article down the toilet. A losing politician and a communist — oooooooh. Completely and absolutely not notable. I'm pulling the handle on the Tidy Bowl ... swoooosh! --♥Golf (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zi Corporation

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

~~Not notable per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The only sources I could find are routine "directory"-style listings and non-independent press releases about the "patent war" and eventual takeover.~~ Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Zi was an interesting case for software patents, it was also listed on NASDAQ, made products that shipped in huge volumes that made a big difference for many users, esp. re. Chinese text entry. The company did receive significant coverage in independent media (see refs), which in sum should be more than enough to make it notable in an encyclopedia that is not paper. The Klein and Lancer controversies are also noteworthy. -- Egil (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I find it compliant with WP:NN. More so , in current form, it is definitely worth enough an interesting read. Devopam (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as this article at least has considerable information and sources, sure it's now non-existent but the coverage is certainly enough. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AFD nomination - sourcing has improved substantially since nomination. My BEFORE search (a Google "news" search) did not deliver many of the sources now used in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:13, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aminu Alan Waka

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

Promotional article with no evidence of notability Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Work and Archivement" section is a WP:COPYVIO of this, complete with its thick layer of WP:PEACOCKery. I haven't deleted it at this time, as it contains any claim that the person may have to notability, but it would have to be replaced if the article did survive AfD. AllyD (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly not even a minimally better notable and acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, article references are not useable, a search brings up similar sites, blogs, listings only. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing credible here regarding encyclopaedicity. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 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. Michig (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UC Berkeley financial aid

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

Fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Article is essentially a brochure. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 06:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An intersection of two things: A school and a list of possible sources of financial aid. Obviously the same thing could be written about any school in the world, just about. Seems to be original research as well as a guide or how-to, mainly.Borock (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is simply not yet set for an acceptable article especially given its current state. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A better idea would be an article on "Student financial aid in the United States." Borock (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:13, 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. Nakon 02:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Forever

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

WP:CONTENTFORK - completely fails WP:NSONGS, article is made almost entirely of albums reviews from Stars Dance, littered with unreliable sources such as Popdust, Soundcloud, Love Is Pop... The fact it charted on a minor component chart in South Korea does not make it notable either. Note: the song somehow passed GA status. Abi-Maria (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst✈^·discuss· 07:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈^·discuss· 07:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from charting at a low position in South Korea (?), I don't see the notability of the song, describing the genre and a rumour about the inspiration behind.. it could be any other song from the album. Indeed, it doesn't meet any criteria of WP:NSONGS. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the GA reviewer (several years ago). I was under the impression that the charting conferred notability, and was of the view that this was about as good as the article was going to get. If the charting does not confer notability, then I'm inclined to agree with you. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charts (or lack thereof) are not an automatic indicator of notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only quality sources giving independent coverage (outside of album reviews or Selena's own commentary) are Fuse (which is still only brief detail and basically counts for little to nothing) and Idolator. While the Idolator ref gives a fair amount of detail, one good source alone outside of album reviews simply isn't enough to warrant a song article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Black Track at LaPorte Stadium

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

Non notable structure on a college campus. Redirect to the school would be an acceptable outcome. John from Idegon (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a factual article. I've been to Tom Black Track several times and I follow the sport of track and field closely. I don't know why this article would be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobhersh (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Bobhersh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep @Bobhersh, the concern here is whether or not the topic meets the general notability guideline for Wikipedia articles, not whether the article is factually accurate or not.

That said, I do think this is a notable stadium; I found quite a few sources with a quick look. This article has very nice in-depth coverage; other sources include this, this, this/this and this.

If the eventual consensus is to merge, Tennessee Volunteers track and field would probably be the best target. Sideways713 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 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) 01:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Fries (politician)

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

Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. While there was once a time when unsuccessful candidates in leadership conventions were accepted as notable on the grounds that they added valuable context to the convention coverage, that's no longer accepted as a claim of notability in its own right if you can't get him over any other inclusion criterion besides that fact alone — but nothing else here does that, and with just one incomplete citation for sourcing he doesn't get a WP:GNG pass either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete loosing the political race he lost does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: On the given content, the subject appears well short of WP:POLITICIAN or broader WP:BIO criteria, nor are my searches locating anything better. AllyD (talk) 09:15, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Matthews (politician)

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

Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. While there was once a time when unsuccessful candidates in leadership conventions were accepted as notable on the grounds that they added valuable context to the convention coverage, that's no longer accepted as a claim of notability in its own right if you can't get him over any other inclusion criterion besides that fact alone — but the only other marginal notability claim here is that a university scholarship is named after him, and no reliable sourcing is present to support any of it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was a failed candidate in two races where being a canidate alone is not enough to make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he's not a solidly notable politician. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsuccessful political office seeker. Quis separabit? 02:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Moran

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. While there was once a time when unsuccessful candidates in leadership conventions were accepted as notable on the grounds that they added valuable context to the convention coverage, that's no longer accepted as a claim of notability in its own right if you can't get him over any other inclusion criterion besides that fact alone — but with just two sources here which are both about the convention, there's nothing else here that would earn him an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a failed candidate at this level does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he's not solidly satisfying the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article appears to be more of an advertisement that anything else. The dude is notable for losing elections, that I did notice. --♥Golf (talk) 00:23, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred C. Hamilton

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. While there was once a time when unsuccessful candidates in leadership conventions were accepted as notable on the grounds that they added valuable context to the convention coverage, that's no longer accepted as a claim of notability in its own right if you can't claim anything else (such as actually having served as an MP or an MLA) alongside it — and there's no sourcing here to put a WP:GNG claim on either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete failed candidates at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a solidly notable politician. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 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 merge to Sacred Name Bibles. Closing as a merge because consensus is split on whether any information here is worth keeping. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 21:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God Bible

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

I can't find coverage of this book in reliable sources, suggesting that it is not notable. The creator suggested a merge, but I don't see the point since there's no reliable third-party sourcing. Not every book gets coverage in Wikipedia, that's just not how it works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sacred Name Bibles, as it is one of those, and it is a plausible search term. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (rather than plain redirect), unless all the others give the same detail of all the divine names. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limited merge, probably just the name (as a list entry) and the Rau citation, and redirect. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sacred Name Bibles, as per Bushranger. As for merging, this book already does appear in a list on the target page. And the Rau citation doesn't seem to be so much about this book itself, but more of a generic discussion of sacred-name translations. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO the Rau citation still confers more notability than the existing publisher's citation in the Sacred Name Bibles list. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singularity art

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

Article about the future of art, seemingly consisting of original research. Almost all of the sources make no mention of the subject. I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources that establish this as a coherent, notable subject. - Mr X 01:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. sst✈^·discuss· 07:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original research. Nothing on Scholar, can't find anything relevant after several pages of ordinary Google results either. Either way, the article is a mess of original synthesis. Kolbasz (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. I thought it was a hoax but I fear that somebody is dead serious about it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to have insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 08:10, 27 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. Nakon 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knifehandchop

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 00:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 00:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - aware that this isn't a source but can see from number of plays on his last.fm page that he is quite well-known - http://www.last.fm/music/Knifehandchop 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article suggests even minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously the article needs sources, but the artist was part of the early IDM and Breakcore scene. I'm pretty sure the artist hasn't been active in a while, which is why sources are difficult to search for. +mt 22:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them." czar 23:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current state of the article does not prove notability. Ana r chyte 01:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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. Michig (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Tycoon 2

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

The video game fails WP:GNG -- no multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. No meaningful hits in reliable source search [2] and regular searching reveals only short and unreliable reviews (e.g. [3][4][5] (AppSpy is under review on WT:VG/RS, but it would still be the only one)). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd redirect to the dev or series article, but none exists. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 00:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not yet notable and acceptable at all. Draft and userfy later if needed at best, SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hate to "per nom", but per nom. Can't find any reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity and Truth Platform Party

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

Non-notable, recently created party. XXN, 00:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep. Judging by Google searches on the party's name in Romanian, this is generating quite enough press coverage in Moldova at the moment for notability, even if, so far, it has been only just about noticed in Romania and scarcely at all further afield. But, even if we are having to rely almost entirely for the moment on Romanian-language Moldovan sources, we need someone who understands enough Romanian to pick out the reliable ones and source the article from them. PWilkinson (talk) 18:58, 20 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) 00:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Moldova is currently in a state of upheaval and this party is currently considered to be one of the major outcomes of this upheaval. In recent polls the party is one of the major political forces of Moldova. Deleting this article would be unwise. Derim Hunt (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just please do not confuse Dignity and Truth Platform and Dignity and Truth Platform Party. The political party evolved from the civic platform with the same name, and even not all platform members support newly formed political party. Probably platform is notable for this actions in 2015 (2015 Moldovan protests), but party is not, yet. If there would have been an article for platfom, maybe I would have proposed merging and and redirecting this article in that.--XXN, 23:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now only it can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 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, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International special awards

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

Sideshow of main event, no independent notability. Unsourced and to my opinion fancruft. The Banner talk 00:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas it fails [[WP:LISTN. These pageants set it up so nearly everyone gets something to brag about. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International special awards

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

Sideshow of main event, no independent notability. Unsourced and to my opinion fancruft. The Banner talk 00:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what is this? A barely notable event that gives an award for Mr Friendship? Is it like kindergarten where everyone gets a ribbon on sports day? WP:LISTN applies to this too and it fails under WP:SPIP. Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody's paid much attention to this beauty pageant. (Plus it's heightist: you have to be at least 1.8 m tall. Still, this could - barely - be Russell Wilson's pageant, to go with his bird.[6]) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nuestra Belleza México special awards

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

Sideshow of main event, no independent notability. Unsourced and to my opinion fancruft. The Banner talk 00:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas Wikipedia should not be a webhost of data the pageant businesses decline to host on their own site. Fails WP:LISTN too as no Reliable Sources engage in this trivia. Legacypac (talk) 10:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely unencyclopedic list. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design42Day

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

Can't find any reliable sources about this company beyond a single interview in Vogue; not notable as far as I can tell. Sam Walton (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only was this accepted in July 2012 as this, it has not considerably improved despite all of the listed links, so this is best deleted for now until a better article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally deleted this, but an editor found some sources and requested that I reopen this. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if I am not missing something, in addition to the already mentioned Vogue, the article contains multiple reliable sources, such as two articles from Corriere della Sera ([7] [8]) and an article from TgCom24 ([9]). The fact they are in Italian does not make them unreliable (eg., Corriere della Sera is the major and most authoritative newspaper in Italy). Cavarrone 15:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify whether the second link is a blog post? The Google Translated page seems to suggest so but it might just be a bad translation. Likewise, the third article reads like some kind of press release, but may also just be down to the translation. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you read WP:BLPSPS, there is a difference between "self-published blogs" (personal and group blogs, unreliable) and online columns hosted by news organizations and also called blogs, yet with editorial overview and written by professional journalists (reliable). Solferino 28 anni is an online column of the Corriere della Sera website Corriere.it focusing on themes of interest for under-thirty-readers and written by several professional journalists who are also active in the printed newspaper (including the author of the piece, Chiara Maffioletti). It even hosts articles just signed as "Redazione" or "La Redazione", which means "The Editorial Staff". And no, the article is not a press release, it is partly an overview of the company and partly an interview with the founders. Cavarrone 16:41, 4 January 2016 (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, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, albeit on the weaker side: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] (short article). The article would benefit from copy editing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 19 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uvuru-agada}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaisalmer railway stadium}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freishia Bomanbehram}}