Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 December 17 December >

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 keep. Now largely rewritten and sourced as Kayode Oladele, the earlier opinions also didn't seem to be aware of his position as member of parliament.  Sandstein  11:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Kayode Oladele[edit]

Wikipedia:Kayode Oladele (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Kayode Oladele|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced WP:BLP, nearly unreadable, and written by the subject of the article. At a bare minimum, it needs a case of WP:TNT Scr★pIronIV 22:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Run of the mill lawyer, a google search of the person brought up this article, his Facebook and linked in profiles, and some articles that mention him. Seasider91 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • G12 - Per this external link (see Copyvio tool results). I'm going to ignore the fact that the article was created in the wrong namespace. G12 aside, it fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO by a longshot. Could almost be considered for G11 if read in the right context. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national parliament (House of Representatives).[1] If this is copyvio, stubefy and start over. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gene93k - I'm still not convinced that this article passes. WP:POLITICIAN does not directly assert whether or not that it requires WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO in order to pass, or that it excludes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO (meaning that the fact that the article passes or fails them is irrelevant). In my experience on Wikipedia, as well as the time I've spend judging articles for CSD and AFD -- I believe that WP:POLITICIAN requires WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and isn't an exclusive policy.
Taking this into account, your source only mentions the person, but does not cover him in-depth. I'm failing to find any sources that provide significant coverage or even basic coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Surely, a politician would be able to easily pass WP:GNG if notable. This is the question and the factor that makes me believe that WP:POLITICIAN requires WP:GNG; this article does not pass WP:GNG, and hence should be deleted. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of Wikipedia's subject-specific notability rules confer an exemption from having to reliably source the article. WP:NPOL just clarifies what is accepted as a valid claim of notability for a politician — but that claim does still have to be sourced to RS coverage which verifies its accuracy. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, it wasn't moved from articlespace to this title in 2014; it was moved from his userpage to this title. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it was - missed that. In that case, I'd suggest userfying it right back. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move. Clearly notable as a member of a national legislature, but no idea why it's where it is. Obviously poorly written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inexperienced editors have occasionally created pages in projectspace, or moved pages into projectspace from elsewhere, because they mistakenly thought "Wikipedia:" was where articles went (there's a Namibian businessman who's up at WP:MFD right now for that exact reason.) I'm guessing that's what happened here too — he thought moving his userpage to this title was making it an article. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a member of a national legislature is sufficient notability in and of itself to make a person eligible for a Wikipedia article — but NPOL does not confer an exemption from having to reliably source the fact that the person did serve in the legislature, because we have seen hoax articles created about people who didn't actually serve. This article, however, is completely unsourced — so even as an eligible-in-principle topic, he doesn't get an automatic "no sourcing required" freebie that would entitle him to keep an article that was written like this. Delete or sandbox, without prejudice against future creation of a reliably sourced article about him if he can be properly verified as having served as claimed. Keep per sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Assembly itself isn't a reliable source? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Assembly would be a primary source rather than a reliable one, because it's a directly affiliated organization rather than media coverage (in the same way that a television journalist doesn't automatically get a Wikipedia article just because they have a staff profile on the website of the television station they work for, but still has to be referenceable to some degree of coverage in media outlets they didn't work for.) The Assembly is a perfectly logical and acceptable place to look for verification of whether the person actually served in it — but it isn't independent enough of the topic to serve as an article's only source. And this article isn't even citing the National Assembly, at that, but is completely unsourced in its current form. I do grant that we still have a lot of old articles about legislators which are still sitting on primary source confirmation from the legislature's own website as their only references — but that's because not enough people are doing the work of going through them to actually add the type of independent sourcing that's actually required, and doesn't mean that a primary source profile is enough sourcing to get an article kept that was created after the rules about BLPs were tightened up to require at least one source that passes WP:RS. There's just too much content here that isn't supported by the NA profile, for example, and there's too much POV/public relations promospeak threaded through it. And again, I said no prejudice against the recreation of a properly sourced and properly written article about him under WP:NPOL #1 — the level of sourcing doesn't have to be brilliant, but something which represents media coverage of the subject in an independent source does have to be there and the article can't say anything about him that isn't supported by that source until more sources are added to support more content. But as I also often have to point out in AFDs on potentially notable politicians, even Barack Obama would have to be deleted and left for future recreation if his article were written and sourced this way and nobody was actually putting in the effort to fix it. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really need to review what constitutes a primary source. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I really don't. A source is primary if it's directly affiliated with the topic (e.g. his own website, a "staff" profile on the website of a directly affiliated organization, etc.), and secondary only if it's fully independent of them (i.e. media). It's a moot point now, because the sourcing has been improved properly, but I'm not wrong about what does or doesn't constitute proper sourcing for an article. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced BLP without prejudice against recreation (in the proper namespace) if/when proper reliable sources can be found and included. --Finngall talk 19:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep now that the article has been TNT'd and improved. --Finngall talk 07:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Improvement actually happening, not "the theoretical prospect of improvement maybe happening someday", is what it takes to get me to change my mind on a WP:BLP that was violating multiple Wikipedia policies in its existing form. But trust me, a delete vote from me is never intended to belittle the person that an article is about — speaking as a Canadian, I'd even vote to delete and recreate an article about Justin Trudeau from scratch if the quality of what was in it were bad enough. Given that you have now restubbed and upreffed the article I've revised my original vote accordingly — I'm glad you took it on, so don't be sad anymore. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Hi Clarityfiend and Bearcat. You have both brought up valid and interesting points in this discussion, and I appreciate that you have both engaged in a discussion that led to an improvement to this article. I'd like to say that reliable sources perform two major functions. They are used for the verification of information and to establish notability. Sometimes, a reliable source may perform both functions simultaneously, in the case of the official website of the National Assembly. In some cases, it doesn't . For example, a columnist doesn't automatically becomes notable simply because they have a staff profile on the website of their employer. The notability must be demonstrated outside their own place of work. In this case, the official website may constitute a primary source. If you have concerns about what constitute a primary source, this can be raised in the appropriate talk page. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, official websites of legislatures that list members of that legislature are clearly acceptable evidence that an individual passes WP:POLITICIAN when all we need for that standard is verification that an individual does hold that position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm saying. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:21, 21 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. MBisanz talk 13:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Watkins[edit]

Ralph Watkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable faculty, meeting neither WP:PROFor WP:NG. Named Associate Professor is not notability by WP:PROF, because it's even less than full professor, not a distinguished professorship greater than an ordinary professor.No academic publications. No national level awards. Part of a promotional campaign by the editor. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Perhaps no better academics notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he actually does have academic publications, see here[3], but they don't appear to be major.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)No !Vote--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- for WP:PROF C1. His "Hip-Hop redemption" has 250 library holdings (both university and public libraries) with a review of it in a major journal (Religious Studies Review, v38 n3 (September 2012)) which is generally enough for a keep. Articles in many major journals and in collected volumes pub'd by NYU Press, Oxford. Might be a close decision for some, but his area of research (African-American religious experience) is underrepresented on Wikipedia which is not a real factor in notability, but may already subconsciously be factoring in negatively. I do not see this as part of a promotional campaign (AGF). The author of the article created 28 articles of which at least 9 (nominator) or at least 14 (my count) are notable enough to not warrant AfD -- see User:Jcstanley/my articles for more discussion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The present article fails to indicate notability. If Michael Scott Cuthbert is right, the article needs amendment to demonstrate that he is notable. This is hinted at in the second paragraph, but not established. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @Peterkingiron:. The General Notability Guideline says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below," (requiring independent RS asserting notability), "or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," which includes WP:PROF. I'm not adding anything new here to my argument above that it meets WP:PROF C1 (which I think it does but others might disagree), only that if it meets that guideline that no other demonstrations of notability are needed. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly why I commented, not voted. I do not have the time or resources to make the requisite improvement. If the article is substantially improved, I will reconsider my position and may vote to keep. At present, the article does not show that he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so Michael Scott Cuthbert's argument can be considered. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, an article does not need to show that a subject is notable, see WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." ie. editors should not expect other editors to improve an article to prove that the subject is notable (we are all busy, although if an editor wishes to, go for it), sources cited at an afd is enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:PROF. Has major journal reviews. Also, see Michael Scott Cuthbert for more info. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 06:16, 19 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resul Hasan Ertaş[edit]

Resul Hasan Ertaş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that he is a pro footballer and some other invalid arguments based on WP:GHITS. Since the Canadian Soccer League, the only senior league he has played in, is not fully pro (see WP:FPL), the article does not meet WP:NSPORT and he has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a semi professional footballer. "The Canadian Soccer League (CSL) is an unsanctioned semi-professional soccer league in Canada." Perhaps the contester has the Canadian soccer league and the Canadian football league mixed up? Seasider91 (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the above explanations clearly say. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO DELETE* *KEEP* I am a football journalist in Canada and follow all the professional leagues. The player is a professional footballer playing in the highest tier of Canadian professional football, the CSL. Please have this page open until February 25 2016; I request a final decision be made on this date, nothing earlier nor later than February 25, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transfermarkttpros (talk • contribs) 07:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:12, 21 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 close. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 164[edit]

Interstate 164 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is completely out of date, I-164 was merged with I-69 over a year ago (except for a small stretch of half a mile), useful information has been merged with the I-69 article. The only reason i don't just delete it myself is that there is an open Move request for the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  21:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep—this article is also the subject of a possible merger, and any redirect with full page history would be needed for attribution purposes. In short, deletion is the wrong option here. Imzadi 1979 → 22:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submission Withdrawn: fair enough, User:Imzadi1979 is right, I was too hasty. It will be needed as a redirect.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  22:34, 16 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. No prejudice against refunding or recreation if and when notability is achieved. The Bushranger One ping only 08:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Cops[edit]

New Cops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, there is no independent reliable coverage, does not meet WP:NF criteria, de-proded with no explanation BOVINEBOY2008 20:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 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 keep. This is close enough to SK3 that I'm closing it as speedy. The nominator is cautioned to use much more care when nominating articles for deletion in the future; the name of an article's subject in the local language (which is, as pointed out, not Russian) is an entirely appropriate thing to include in an article, and an article's being "partially" in another language is not a reason for deletion at all - it's a reason for cleanup, and AfD is not for that. The Bushranger One ping only 08:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SRC Pools Smederevo[edit]

SRC Pools Smederevo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Partially in Russian. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 16 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youth I-League U15[edit]

Youth I-League U15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the players or teams (U15 teams) are notable. Also fails WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC

Also nominating for the same reason: 2015–16 Youth I-League U15. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both for now at best as this seems like a not yet notable newly founded league. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - no evidence of notability for either. Fenix down (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - per nom Spiderone 21:21, 22 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) 02:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Fazzolari[edit]

Tamara Fazzolari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon. This does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. Uniquely, the article also points out she was raped while a minor making it a possible WP:BLP violation and quite distasteful. Her daughter's article Ali Wallace is also up for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 09:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition, and her court case is now a significant piece of the Oregon legal system. - Dravecky (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An expected opinion from the article creator, but thanks. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's plenty of coverage in reliable sources on the page already, so it meets the GNG and WP:BIO. Also I don't think you understand what the BLP policy means - the rape is cited to reliable sources (not to mention her parents sued, so it's obviously in the public record). BLP doesn't mean that any negative event in a person's life can't be on WP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VICTIM "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.... The victim... consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. WP:NCRIME "And Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources."

Which begs the question, was the rape a "high-profile criminal act"? Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • She clearly isn't notable only in connection with the rape (which takes up 3 sentences in a 7 paragraph article). FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then the case, not the victim needs an article. This article does not detail the case, perpetrator or anything. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike the multitude of other pageant-winner nominations, this person is (sadly) notable for more than just the pageant, therefore WP:BLP1E does not apply, but WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP do, and there is no such thing as WP:BLP2E. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:GNG - Nominator needs to clarify why WP:NOPAGE applies. There are sufficient neutral reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines. The article contains more information then a birthdate and winning Miss Oregon. It contains information about her life, a rape, and explains the daughter also won miss Oregon. This is information relevant to the person that cannot be put in the article Miss Oregon. As such it should have its own article. Even if the rape were to deserve its own article, the page cannot be redirected to both articles. A seperate article is the best way to provide our readers with an overview of the subject. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 13:10, 22 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' freestyle 63 kg[edit]

Wrestling at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' freestyle 63 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting two from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrestling at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' freestyle 46 kg for separate discussion. These two have some data entered unlike the rest which were all blank. This is a procedural nomination and should not be taken as a call to delete. SpinningSpark 18:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The comments on the original AfD questioned the notability of all the individual weight classes for this event not just the empty ones. There is no point in having two isolated weight classes.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete boy's freestyle 63kg as all content on that page is already included in Wrestling at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics. Keep girl's freestyle 52kg as it has substantial further content. Deryck C. 09:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Neither article has anything but results and neither article has any significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both As I said at the original discussion, there's nothing to indicate individual divisions of a youth event are notable. The only sources for either article provide just the results, but no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 19 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naad (band)[edit]

Naad (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The band is not notable generally and fails all of the specific notability criteria for a band. Web searches found no sources that would establish notability. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means as this has stayed enough time for it to have become noticeably better and none of the listed coverage suggests even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:22, 23 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Power User[edit]

Computer Power User (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and tagged for notability for 5 years, the magazine just doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an article and was created by an employee. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication that this magazine, which is distributed on-line for no cost, is notable. No credible claim of notability is made in the article itself. Content of the magazine is largely promoting new technology, hardware and software. Web searches found no coverage by any independent reliable source (but many mentions that the magazine exists with a description of contents that all appear to have originated from press releases from the magazine's staff because the wording is so similar). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I could find was the company website, twitter handle, etc. Not quite notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is more out there than the website and press releases. It is also quoted by other publications, some of which I would consider notable. However, it is not used widely enough as a source to consider it being influential. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 16 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maze (dance group)[edit]

Maze (dance group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band has received no significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG, nor are any of the subject-specific criteria of WP:BAND met. It would appear that they won a regional competition, but then did not participate in the finals. References consist of a YouTube video and their listing on that festival's website. Searching for others has turned up only trivial social media coverage. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 17:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hardly anything to suggest even minimally better general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 17 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. Not reaching for the WP:SALT yet, but if it comes back again it'll be time to empty the shaker. The Bushranger One ping only 08:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Aziz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Khalid Aziz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Repeatedly recreated page; was previously deleted in Aug 2015. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no independent in-depth coverage, just standard job profiles and self-provided PR information (ref #6 for example). Clearly written to promote the topic. A successful career isn't automatically "notability" (in Wikipedia's sense of the term) without significant coverage in independent sources. GermanJoe (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I somewhat remember this AfD from August and it seems more or less the exact state so there's nothing to suggest a better article, nearly even G4 material. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the previous AFD and WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO - I cannot locate reliable sources that satisfy the requirement for significant coverage, let alone the requirement for anything beyond basic coverage - there isn't any sources that seem to cover this person in-depth. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - The information is true and can be proven through the linked sources Phoebe.Ashley (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. We don't have evidence of passing WP:PROF nor WP:GNG: the only references that look reliable and about the actual subject of the article (rather than merely about TV shows he's associated with) are a local news story about him stepping down from a charity, with little detail about him, and the Debrett's profile. I don't think that's enough. The FRSA is certainly not enough (it's too unselective). The username history of the article's promoters strongly hints that the article was created as part of a paid promotional campaign. And the failure to respect the previous AfD outcome suggests that we need to protect this against continued re-creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, Fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:33, 23 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. Consensus is to develop rather than WP:TNT. postdlf (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fantasy comics[edit]

List of fantasy comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list has too broad of a scope to maintain. With very many (perhaps most?) comics containing fantasy elements, this list can't ever be even half complete, and neither is it helpful to readers because "fantasy" encompasses so very much. A category and a list of lists would be more useful at this level of generality, complemented by a series of more narrowly scoped lists (see the subgenres at Fantasy). Until somebody writes this, however, the current content can be safely deleted, since it's basically a random and indiscriminate selection of a few notable comics, and is of no use to any further development as described above.  Sandstein  19:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  23:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have an article on Fantasy comics, a list is an appropriate branch of that article. If the list should be pared down, then pare it down. Chunky Rice (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chunky Rice. A tighting up of terms would be appreciated on both this article and the fantasy comics one though. Artw (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This one was a difficult choice. This sub-topic is very undeveloped in Wikipedia, but I share Sandstein's concerns of maintenance issues. Existence of the list (or sub-categories) could be useful for interested editors, but the category serves the very same generic purpose at this moment. If Fantasy comics eventually gets bloated with notable comics, we can split them. Ceosad (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:It is not unusual for lists to carry a disclaimer that they can never be complete. Also, books that contain fantasy only in passing do not belong in this list. Added disclaimer and clarification on page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Not sure this should be in this list though. What they stated above I agree with. itsmeemario (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists are useful. They are often hard to maintain, incomplete and inconsistent, yet we've made a practice of keeping scads of them. In particular WP:OUTCOMES mentions that "Lists and categories have different uses, and lists nominated for deletion just because they have overlapping categories are kept."Jacona (talk) 16:29, 16 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. Numerically, opinions are divided. That also applies if we discount opinions based mainly on the particular politics of this topic. We also don't seem to have consensus at a policy level about whether "criticism of x" articles are allowed. WP:NPOV, the relevant policy, tells us that "an article titled 'Criticisms of X' might be better renamed 'Societal views on X'" and, in a footnote, that "Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate." This does not weigh heavily for or against keeping this article. The page WP:Criticism, which covers the issue in more depth, is an essay and therefore not relevant as guidance in this closure. That being the case, I can't weigh either side's arguments more or less strongly, and recommend that clarification is sought at a policy level about whether we do want these types of articles, or whether we want to cover criticism in the context of broader articles about the topic (such as, here, Israel, its history, institutions and policies).  Sandstein  11:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Israeli government[edit]

Criticism of the Israeli government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a content fork and a non-encyclpedic collection of cherry-picked negative information about a country. This is not an appropriate encyclopedic topic, but rather a "coatrack" page. I do not think it serves any good purpose except to disparage the subject. This is a content fork of the following pages:

  1. Israel. Please note that none of other countries, including even Nazi Germany has a similar "criticism of the country" content fork. This is because all significant "negative" information about any country should be included in the page about that country.
  2. Anti-Israeli sentiment. Not only this page is mostly about the anti-Israeli sentiment, but it is currently used as a soapbox to promote the anti-Israeli sentiment through Wikipedia, as one can see from this section. This is explicitly forbidden by our policies.
  3. Human rights in Israel - this section
  4. Arab–Israeli conflict - for example, this section
Yes, this page includes a lot of significant and well-sourced content. However, most of this content can be found on other pages mentioned above. If not, it should be moved to these other pages.

Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article was previously discussed at AfD under a different name, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles containing criticism and refutes does not contradict it being WP:POVFORK; they contain much of essentially same information but are leaning towards different POVs - Anti-Israeli sentiment tends to be more neutral and points alleged connection between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while this article tends to be more supportive of the Anti-Israeli views.“WarKosign” 15:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some other crap does exist. As about Jews as Nazi [4], this is soapboxing. As someone wrote, "It is a charge that is purposefully directed at Jews in an effort to associate the victims of the Nazi crimes with the Nazi perpetrators, and serves to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust. To make such a comparison is an act of blatant hostility toward Jews and Jewish history." My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, per nom. The very existence of the article is a violation of NPOV. If it was something like Views of Israel or Positions on Israeli government it had a chance of being NPOV. As it exists now, it's just a collection of every slander that was ever thrown toward Israel. “WarKosign” 14:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is most certainly a POV fork and coatrack article. This whole article's contents can be included, and I think is, within the Israel article itself. The purpose of this article is written solely to disparage and has no place in a NPOV encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:SYNTHESIS of various topics and therefore original research. There isn't a reliable source (I'm sure there are plenty of low quality sources though) that properly combines all the various topics on this page. I would agree that these criticisms would also apply to the United States and United Nations pages as well. In general we try to avoid criticism sections and articles: WP:CRITS. This article isn't even necessary: many of the sections have links to pages that actually discuss the topic in a neutral manner, e.g., Human rights in Israel, Racism in Israel, etc. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FuriouslySerene, your initial statement is incorrect - see for example The Case for Israel, and look at the quotes in the first few references of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not only have all these arguments now been refuted later on this page, Brewcrewer chose not to disclose that he was the nominator of the previous AfD for this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the general idea of lumping criticisms together is also POV. For instance, my country the USA is criticized for being too rich, too poor, too snobbish, too low-brow, too isolationist, too interventionist, too conservative, too liberal, etc. etc. What would be the point of putting them all together on one page? Of course individual notable issues could have their own articles. Borock (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did check out that article before I posted my comments. It is mentioned in an earlier comment. I would say delete 'em left and right, if you'll pardon the expression.Borock (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Borock: Want to bet on whether anyone on this page is going to nominate any of the others for deletion? And on whether any of the AfDs will pass if nominated? :P Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would nominate them but I don't really care that much. Maybe I will change my mind. But don't bet on it, or against it. :) Borock (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, any country has been criticized with respect to a large number of issues. But here is the question: should all such very different criticisms be combined under umbrella of one article, or it would be more appropriate/encyclopedic to create more specific and neutrally titled pages, such as those above or let's say Public image of Israel, Israel in international politics, etc. Simply combining all imaginable criticisms about any country looks biased, not encyclopedic and a combination of content already described on other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because separate "for" and "against" articles on everything is precisely what we want to avoid. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I talked about anti-Israel (anti-country) sentiment, which is different from antisemitism (anti-ethnic group) and Anti-Judaism (anti-religion). If Anti-Israel sentiment is something different from Anti-Zionism (I am not sure), then perhaps this page should be completely rewritten and renamed to Anti-Israeli sentiment (currently a redirect page). Either way, this page under discussion has a content overlap with Anti-Zionism .My very best wishes (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Anti-Israel sentiment page should be redirected to this page. It makes no sense for it to be redirected to the anti-Zionism page. Zionism is an ideology. Israel is a state. There can be many motivations for anti-Israel sentiment, including anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, international law, Arab nationalism etc. Of course there are overlaps between the concepts, the pages could link to each other. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, yes, "Anti-Israeli sentiment" is a separate subject, different from "anti-Zionism". That is what this page ("Criticism of the Israeli government") is mostly about. It is about Anti-Israeli sentiment, which would be a much better and neutral title/subject for this "criticism" page.My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is your position that the article should be renamed? I see Anti-Russian sentiment but that is a very different article than this one. Actually I am not even sure whether the "anti-Israel sentiment" redirect should exist, but I am sure that it should not be redirected to anti-Zionism. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that renaming and rewriting might be one of options - if others think so. As about "Anti-Russian sentiment", yes, this is something different ("a diverse spectrum of negative feelings ... and/or prejudice of Russia, Russians and/or Russian culture"). This is just one subject. However, Jews were hated so much that it led to several separate subjects: dislike of their country (this page), dislike of their ideas (anti-Zionism), dislike of their religion and culture (anti-Judaism), and dislike as an ethnic group (antisemitism). My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Let me again point out to the fact that similar articles exist such as the American one. The debate on why this article should be deleted because it says 'criticism' in the title, is invalid, can be simply renamed into 'Views' or whatever is necessary. Also the NPOV argument, WP:PRESERVE might be a better policy to follow. Finally, let me remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy per WP:DEMOCRACY, considering that the majority of people supporting deletion here and giving their views are from Israel. I highly suggest expanding this discussion and inviting more uninvolved editors to voice their opinion and share any points that we missed.Makeandtoss (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I've added this Afd to three WikiProject Deletion sorting pages, including the Palestine project page. It is no way a 'non-public' discussion. 2) Your statement that "the majority of people supporting deletion here and giving their views are from Israel" seems to be incorrect as well as rather reprehensible 3) and on that note, I see you're from Jordan - should we be discounting your vote, too? 4) if by "expanding this discussion" you mean seeking out editors more inclined to support your position, please read WP:VOTESTACK. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: Sorry for not replying, didn't notice your comment. WP:VOTESTACK is exactly why I suggest this discussion should be expanded.Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, Israel was criticized a lot, and especially with regard to human rights and controlling the territories. This info should be included in page Human rights in Israel and other appropriate pages, and it has been included. However, simply collecting various accusations about certain country is not really a good encyclopedic approach. Same can be said about Criticism of the United States government. However, I would not rush to nominate the US page for deletion because: (a) it was written as a criticism of the government rather than the country, and (b) it is written in a more neutral language and does not read like a blatant propaganda (e.g. "Nazi" on this page). My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet here we are discussing its removal not its improvement.. Wikipedia works on verifiability not truth.Makeandtoss (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying that no one suggests to delete this page just "because it says 'criticism' in the title". Many other "criticism" pages are fine. And even if they are not, that does not matter. WP:Other crap exists. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit, possible rename: Israel is already a large article and many topics have already been summarized on that page and moved to separate pages. The page under consideration for deletion does have both (negative) criticism and response to those criticisms, so it has the opportunity to attain NPOV and encyclopedic coverage. The page has major problems. It needs editing to remove undue emphasis, piling up of quotes on the exact same point (I'm guessing that's what is meant by "coatrack"), trimming quotes to the minimum necessary (these are supposed to be references, and source content is supposed to be paraphrased, not quoted at length from primary sources), and improving coverage of the responses to criticism. The inline inclusion of responses to the responses to criticism belong in the original criticism section so that the responses section stands by itself as just the responses to criticism. Favorable commenting on the Israeli government and negative responses to that belong on this page as well; criticism isn't necessary just negative. However, this might require a page rename to something like "Critical coverage of Israeli Government" or "Criticism about Israeli Government" as "Criticism of" is likely to be taken as just about negatives. Finally, there is a mix of comments about anti-semitism independent of comments about the Israeli government that don't seem to belong on this page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As currently written, this page is not about the government, but about the country, including criticizing its right to exist. It tells in first phrase: "Criticism of the Israeli government, often referred to simply as criticism of Israel", "Israel is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany", and so on. Hence my suggestion to delete. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – The topic meets the requirements for WP:GNG with all the significant coverage received in numerous relevant non-trivial, independent, reliable third party and secondary sources, and is large enough to have a stand-alone article. There is also potentially more information to expand the article further.
Merging all of the information into Israel might violate WP:UNDUE and nothing will be gained by merging a token bit into another article and the rest being lost. In addition, this will also make the Israel article far too long - WP:Article size says that any article over 100 kb should "almost certainly be divided" and it is currently on just under 315,000 kb.
There is no argument for WP:POVFORK as both the negative or positive viewpoints are included. If the argument for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is going to be used then as per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, there is nothing stopping editors for creating articles of "Criticism of" other governments, the fact that there are only a few such articles currently exist is not a valid argument for deleting this article. As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, any specific problems with the article should be addressed through editing not deletion. Also, the repetitive, flippant WP:IDONTLIKEIT labelling of the article as racist and/or anti-Semitic is also unhelpful and not a valid argument or grounds for deleting the article as per WP:NOTCENSORED.
It is also worth noting that after two months of multiple editors attempting to edit warring to remove a large section of the article without any discussion, the same editors are all voting to delete the article now that it has been nominated for deletion. As per WP:NOTVOTE, bear in mind it is '"not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important'. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to include all of the information from this page into Israel or other pages because most of the important information has been already included in the corresponding pages. This page is simply a content fork and non-encyclpedic collection of cherry-picked negative information about a country, which is not an appropriate encyclopedic topic in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder how you don't think it's worth noting that the section in question was added without any discussion, and multiple editors, including you, continued edit warring to keep it in without any discussion and are voting to keep the article. “WarKosign” 19:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for WP:POVFORK is perfectly valid: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article."
"Anti-Zionism is opposition to ... the modern State of Israel". There is clearly a major overlap between the subjects of the two articles, and while this article represents mostly views critical of Israel and supporting Anti-Zionism, the article dedicated to Anti-Zionism considers the nature of the phenomenon. See for example how criticism of Israel is compared with antisemitism. The same subject is covered here as well. Most of the sections of the article suffer from the same problem, they are contradicting POVs of a subject already covered elsewhere. The remaining few sections should be cleaned up and moved to other articles. “WarKosign” 20:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – my views have not changed since the previous AfD on this article. In summary, this topic is of extremely high notability, particularly the hotly debated question of whether the overall criticism is disproportionate. Innumerable WP:RS books and media articles have been written on the topic, of which some of the clearest examples are the first few references in the article - the relevant quotes are shown clearly in the footnotes.
As to the question of whether criticism articles should exist, there are around 160 such articles today, and given the decades of media and scholarly focus on this topic, this article seems highly appropriate in that context. Apart from following sources such as Dershowitz, the article serves a clear purpose. Without this article, there are at least 16 articles which contain information relevant to this page: (1) Anti-Zionism; (2) Human rights in Israel and Human rights in Israel#Human rights record in the Occupied Territories; (3) Relationships between Jewish religious movements; (4) Israeli Settlements; (5) Economy of the Palestinian territories; (6) Israeli-occupied territories; (7) Palestinian refugees; (8) New antisemitism; (9) Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations and List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel; (10) Public diplomacy (Israel); (11) Loyalty oath#Israel; (12) Israel and the apartheid analogy; (13) International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict; (14) Boycotts of Israel; (15) Disinvestment from Israel; (16) Hafrada and this excludes main topic articles such as Israel or Anti-Zionism. There is no article which connects them despite the fact that the sources provided prove the notability of the overall topic beyond any doubt. This article covers a highly important topic, important to academics, the government of Israel and the people of Israel, among others.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are numerous legitimate subjects and pages (above) that contain negative information about Israel. Taking all these disparate negative claims from different pages and copying/dumping them into this single "criticism" page was not a good idea. This is very definition of a "content/POV fork". My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:POVFORK. It states clearly that "There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork". As shown in many other comments, not only is "Criticism of Israel" a "ubiquitous rubric", but the contents of this article are mirrored by numerous WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no consensus whether always" means "it many cases (maybe all of them) it is". It is a far cry from "there is consensus that it's not". A "Criticism of" article is only POV fork when it repeats content already covered elsewhere giving preference to a specific POV, as is the case in this article. “WarKosign” 07:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with any other "Criticism of" articles, as inherently unencyclopedic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not object to this article (and for that matter, the one on the united states if they weren't the only two "criticism of government" articles. It's really ridiculous that two democratic countries have those articles and there's no, say, Criticism of the North Korean government. Therefore it seems its very creation was POV --Monochrome_Monitor 05:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is because nobody defends North Korea (at least on Wikipedia), while many people defend Israel, United States, communism, Christianity, Islam, United Nations etc. That is why the article has both criticism and response to criticism. I will make a deal with people who claim that this is "inherently POV", some new concept I have never heard of before. Nominate any of six "Criticism of X" articles I mentioned above for deletion (you can choose). If the AfD ends up delete, I will switch my vote to delete. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the question is asked as to why these two governments receive criticism, well if a state that claims to be a secular, democratic republic but fails to respect UN resolutions, honour Geneva Conventions, abide with international law or value humanitarian laws etc, then its regime is clearly going to be scrutinised more than a totalitarian dictatorship whose criticism is not going to be as highly documented as there will naturally be less independent people inclined to defend it. However, there is little point repeating all this again if a WP:IDHT stance is adopted by editors.
Kingsindian, have you actually !voted? I cannot see that you have. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per Oncenawhile. The comparison with North Korea is a bit off. Editors of that article and topic in general allow criticism and handle it in a disinterested way according to policy rather than complain about it or get offended by it and try to suppress it. Nor do they focus their attention on criticizing South Korea, the US, NGOs and international organizations on behalf of the North Korean state. This is a good thing. Editors who want to work on articles related to North Korea are spared the unpleasant and counterproductive experience that so often comes with being required to collaborate via discussion with nationalist apologists. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as a WP:COATRACK upon which thinly veiled Antisemitism is hung. Criticism of Israeli policies and government procedures is well-covered in articles about those policies and procedures. Opposition to the existence of Israel is well covered at Anti-Zionism. This article serves no useful purpose.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi E.M.Gregory, please be careful throwing around charges of Antisemitism. You may find it interesting to read Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government#Distinguishing_legitimate_criticism_of_Israel_from_antisemitism. Not only is this relevant to your own comment, it is also a good example of good content that would be lost from the encyclopaedia if this article is deleted. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean material already covered at length in a dedicated article and repeated here with a POV spin ? No, it would not be "lost". “WarKosign” 07:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existence of such books proves that it's notable that Israel is both criticized and supported. It does not explain why there should be an article dedicated chiefly to one and not the other, and why there should be more than one article covering the subject. “WarKosign” 16:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this subject-matter is notable in its own right, to the extent that Israel's government and its little helpers go out of their way to denounce international criticism, and hatch plots to undermine anyone who agrees with the criticism ("delegitimize the delegitimizers"). Furthermore, the alternative, moving this material to Israel would make that article even longer than it already is. Yet even further, instead of arguing along the lines of "this is criticism, we don't like criticism, therefore delete" misses the point since it fails to address the specific reasons this particular criticism article was started to begin with. Criticism of Israel's policies has been published by very reliable entities in a huge number of sources. --Dailycare (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the most useless essays on Wikipedia. If one avoided every argument which that essay lists, one would be left with no arguments at all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vulgar language?????Makeandtoss (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect/reorganize. If the target article is too big, it shoud be split by essential topics: "External politics", "internal politics", "economical politics", etc. and/or by chronology: clearly there was many Israeli governments and I am sure each had its own politics, either criticized or praized. In any case, I agree the discussed article is a nonencyclopedic chaos. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As an editor exempt from WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, I would like to quote an observation made by a less fortunate editor: "The Working Definition of Antisemitism gives as one example of antisemitism “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”. The definition was created in 2004 by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now known as the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union. It has received widespread international use, for example in its adopted by the US Government for the State Department Report on antisemitism, and in its adoption by the British Police as part of their Hate Crimes Operations Guide . The London Declaration of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, signed by members of Parliament from around the world also adopts the Working Definition and encourages its widespread use. Comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, calling Israel a Nazi state, or saying Jews should know better and not behave like Nazis are all forms of the racist attack that uses Jewish identity as grounds for attacking. This needs to be called out." “WarKosign” 09:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is already in the article. See references 83 and 84. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet most (500 words out of 700) of the section is dedicated to quoting various antisemitic claims. I can't think of anything being further from WP:NPOV. “WarKosign” 10:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I suggest we reduce the section significantly, to just a couple of paragraphs. The paragraphs should simply explain that such comparisons have been used to criticise Israel by a variety of commentators, and that such comparisons are deemed to be unacceptable and antisemitic by many reputable organizations. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And then these paragraph should be moved to New antisemitism, where comparison with Nazis is already somewhat covered. “WarKosign” 11:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new antisemitism article uses the term "criticism of Israel" at least 15 times. If this article didn't exist, a reader of the new antisemitism article would suddenly lack a huge chunk of the relevant context. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the section is problematic, one can simply argue for changes on the article talk page. What does this have to do with AfD? 90% of the article has nothing to do with the section. By the way, I myself stated on the talk page that at least 75% of the section is junk and should be removed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the EU drop the Working Definition of Antisemitism in 2013 ? See [5] for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article is in a very poor state, it is not a POV fork, nor does it per se serve to disparage the criticized subject.
    It is true that no other country has been confronted with as much criticism, often basically hate thinly veiled in criticism "of the government". And indeed Israel is regularly held against the highest standards, often enough even double-standards. So that's at least one of the major reasons why respective articles exist for Israel and the U.S. only. Whether we like it or not, we need to take it as a fact that around the world Israel is the favorite object of criticism. Wikipedia isn't supposed to selectively tone down or disregard excessive criticism on the grounds of it not being fair.
    Secondly, most if not all of these criticisms are widely known and shared by Israel-haters and Israel-critics around the world. It's not like we were showcasing fringe discourses, thereby giving them undue weight. It's all here, and can only be addressed and answered if openly presented. In fact, it is in the best interest of the people of Israel that these criticisms aren't dislodged to far more fact-averse places than Wikipedia is.
    We can discuss whether the current title is optimal, given that even the staunchest Israel-haters might have noticed that there have been many different Israeli governments over time, espousing different policies. But this isn't the right situation to discuss rescoping and/or retitling. The current scope is a highly relevant real-world topic, so it is a valid Wikipedia topic. If the article in its current state is POV or simply poor in quality, then the reason might be that quite some participants have been arguing about the article rather than actually improving it. I just made a first step in restructuring it. Much more needs to be done. --PanchoS (talk) 03:52, 24 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. Can be userfied on request, perhaps.  Sandstein  11:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pani Babu[edit]

Pani Babu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a couple of long and hard looks, I cannot find sufficient reliable coverage of this person to meet WP:GNG, even taking into account WP:INDAFD. The only sources I can find are in publications not remotely reliable. I had PRODed this, but the tag was removed by the author, who also has a name similar to the subject (possibly a relative?) which raises COI concerns as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 15:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 15:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the Surotho Pani mentioned many times in the linked "Seed Holds..." book might be notable, but unless the author is asserting that Suratha is the same as Surotho, there's no mention of this subject in that book. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Issues related to transliteration might well mean that Suratha and Surotho are the same. Having not seen the book, I regret that I find it difficult to judge significance from what is essentially no more than a stub. Possibly userify, so that the author can work on it, with a view to establishing notability. If (for example) in the course of a career, he established several dozen churches, he might well be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Michael Scott Cuthbert, Peterkingiron; yes, I believe that errors in transliteration means that Surotho and Suratha are the same person. However, the book is published by Lulu.com; described by Wikipedia as " is an online print-on-demand, self-publishing and distribution platform." Hardly a reliable publisher, methinks. I would even have accepted a religious publisher, were they distant from the subject, but this doesn't even meet that low bar. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 21 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inditva[edit]

Inditva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a neologism of insufficient importance, and is inappropriate per WP:NEO, as well as failing to meet WP:GNG. The only real coverage is a couple of sources about the original statement in which this was used; the sources after that are blog sources, and a single quote of the original. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 15:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This term has been coined by one of the former presidents of India. As regards to the usage of the terms, please refer to the Google Scholar Search. The term has also been used in the book the "Demons of Chitrakoot" by Ashok K Banker published by Penguin publishers. The ref is: "...You understood that it's not about 'hindutva' and the religion of politics, but about 'Inditva', Indian pride, and a story too great to be either saffronized or sanitized." ref --Muzammil (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I saw the use in "Demons of Chitrakoot;" but that's the foreword to a work of fiction, and so not exactly an academic discussion of the topic. Besides for an article about a neologism, you really need sources discussing the term, not simply using it. I checked google scholar myself before nominating this; although the 63 results look impressive at first, there is only only 1 english result, the aforementioned "Demons of Chitrakoot;" there is no indication that the sources in other languages are treating the same term. Yes, it was coined by an ex-Indian President; does that make it notable in and of itself? Personally, I don't think so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the term is gaining currency can be gauged from some sources such as Unionpedia. As regards to the usage of the term, it is also used in other published works such as Armies of Hanuman. Hence it should be KEPT. --Muzammil (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your opinion, I honestly do; if you were to find substantive coverage, I would willingly withdraw the nomination. You do realise, though, that what you are presenting as a different source is the same foreword to a different volume of the same work of fiction? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main thing here I feel is the relative importance to the term: "the fourth in Banker's modern retelling of Rama's story, and takes on his journey to the kingdom of Lanka. For Banker, this story is 'not about 'hindutva' and the politics of religion, but about 'inditva', Indian pride, and a story too great to be saffronised or sanitised.'" (Review by Telegraph). --Muzammil (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very informative article, must NOT delete. Yes coined by ex president and report by journalist make it notable. So many words are coined by presidents are now common.Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also in favor of this article. This is a common term, hope it will not be deleted :) Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article, written by K R Narayanan, Former President of India, who had his Advanced Higher Education from London, and also served as an Ambassador of English speaking countries viz., United Kingdom and United States of America, has an entry of a new word 'Inditva'. Since the word had been coined by an eminent academician with profound English knowledge, who was also heading a biggest democratic state of the world, same should be accepted in the similar way as words,coined by the other heads of the states, have been already accepted So many words. Besides this the article is the need of the day to strengthen the fabric Humanity. I strongly appeal to retain 'Inditva'. --Drcenjary (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly in favor of this article. Please do not delete this article, this must be retain it--Arif80s (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is non-notable neologism. Minus Wikipedia mirrors, there are 8,730 Google results, a large number of them about the Hungarian language word for "started". If we restrict the search to Google Scholar / Books, tthere are one or two results that are actually about this topic. At best, this can be a redirect to K R Narayanan, Indian nationalism or Hindutva. utcursch | talk 14:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with nominator's rationale of the term failing WP:NEO. But I differ with what Utcursch says of redirecting it to Indian nationalism or Hindutva as the term hasn't really got any analysis done by others. Its just verbatim replication of what KRN said and maybe a redirect to his article would be okay, that too is a thin chance as this term doesn't seem much popular for someone to look on Wiki. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dharmadhyaksha has it about right. I'm a little surprised at the early comments here but presume they follow Narayanan's activities much more closely than me. It is a non-notable neologism, pure and simple. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nominator. Non-notable neologism. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:55, 21 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 Sword of Truth. Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sword of Truth characters[edit]

List of The Sword of Truth characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTPLOT, a policy, articles must not contain only plot summary. This here is nothing but plot summary. In addition, it's unsourced (WP:V), and I would be very surprised if the topic of the characters in this novel series, as a group, had received the kind of coverage required per WP:GNG.

This type of article often devolves into a dumping ground for fancruft better suited for fan wikis. That this has happened here is apparent from the fact that it is written in an in-universe style, portraying the fiction as real, contrary to our manual of style (Wikipedia:Real world). It would need a complete rewrite to be anywhere near MOS-compliant, and is therefore a WP:TNT candidate even if one were to be of the view that a list of this sort has a place here, which I do not. In Wikipedia, significant characters are generally better treated as part of the (appropriately concise) plot summaries in the context of the articles about the respective works.  Sandstein  22:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Does this article need clean up? Yes. But there are 17 books in the series and the television series lasted for 2 seasons (44 episodes). The books have sold over 25 million copies as of 2008 (since that was 7 years ago, much more have probably sold). The series is clearly notable. There are a lot of characters in the series. There needs to be a page to contain them. Like Flyer22 Reborn pointed out, there are many articles in very similar situations like List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters and List of Game of Thrones characters. If we delete this article simply because it is all plot, we will have to do the same to those articles and many others. JDDJS (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per what I stated in a related discussion; like I stated there, "Sandstein and I are fans of the Game of Thrones series, but I don't see that he tagged the List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters and List of Game of Thrones characters articles, which are not much better than the List of The Sword of Truth characters article, for deletion. Yes, I'm invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS." There are interviews given by the portrayers of the Legend of the Seeker characters, and that is just one way that the List of The Sword of Truth characters article can be fixed up. Furthermore, such articles are always mostly plot, even with the WP:Real-world perspective. Yes, even the WP:Good and WP:Featured articles. Give editors a chance to make the article more encyclopedic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:LISTN. AfD is not cleanup. sst✈(discuss) 07:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to all of the above: You do not explain how this list is notable per WP:LISTN. To be so, not only must the series be notable, but also the distinct topic of its characters. At least, these characters must have received substantial coverage in independent reliable souces, which is not apparent here (unlike, say, the Game of Thrones characters). – As regards cleanup: The article is tagged for sources since 2007. If nobody has improved it since then to the point of showing notability, most likely it can't or won't ever be.  Sandstein  10:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The series is notable enough that a television adaptation, Legend of the Seeker, was created about it. And the television adaptation of those characters has gotten enough media attention, including interviews for their portrayers (as I've already noted). If I create a Kahlan Amnell article, I wouldn't want it to be only about the television character. Furthermore, I don't see a need for that, when I can simply cover the casting and creation of the television counterparts in the List of The Sword of Truth characters article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough that I can add about these characters, including Cara, as the behind the scenes "Legend of the Seeker - Meet Cara" video is indicative of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And your "If nobody has improved it since then to the point of showing notability, most likely it can't or won't ever be." argument is weak. There are so many Wikipedia articles, including WP:Stubs, that have been tagged for cleanup, sources, or expansion for several years and still haven't been cleaned up, significantly sourced, or significantly expanded even though they can be. And given the various topics I work on here at Wikipedia, I should know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not contesting that the series is notable. I'm contesting that its characters are, and that they should therefore, if at all, only be briefly covered in the series article, and not at article length (neither collectively nor per character). The way to counter this argument would to show substantial coverage of these articles in reliable third-party sources, and I'm not seeing any. The "Legend of the Seeker - Meet Cara" video is a promotional video for the TV adaptation; that's not third-party coverage. As to the time aspect, that's just to counter the "give us time" argument: if nobody has done any sourcing work for years even while the TV series ran, it's either impossible to do or nobody cares enough about this apparently quite third-rate franchise to ever do it.  Sandstein  16:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main characters are notable, per what I stated above. There are reliable, third-party sources on those characters, mainly their television adaptations, just like the vast majority of information about The Walking Dead comics and the A Song of Ice and Fire characters concerns their television adaptations. But I see no need to make an article for each of the main The Sword of Truth characters when it can be validly covered in this article you've nominated for deletion. I cited the "Meet Cara" video because it (not that exact YouTube video) can be used as a source, as can DVD commentary, and other primary or secondary sources. As for your time argument, I've countered that it's weak, and I noted why it's weak; I'd rather not repeat why and point to a variety of examples. If this article is deleted, you can expect a new and improved one from me in the future; and that one will not be deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:Notability usually does not pertain to "List of characters" articles anyway; the vast majority of such articles contain mostly non-notable characters, which is why those characters do not get their own Wikipedia articles. Not every notable or non-notable character needs their own Wikipedia article; WP:No page, WP:Spinout and WP:No split are clear about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article had many redirects to sections that were deleted when the article was originally deleted via PROD. If this discussion ends as a keep, all of those redirects should be restored. JDDJS (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I will take a hardliner position in this and claim that without an universe written like in mythopoeia sub-genre (like the Lord of the Rings) or without an in-depth backstory (like the one Westeros has with previous fantasy wars, dragons and stuff), there is little sense of keeping these lists of characters. They tend to devolve into fandom and plot details. Westeros and LoTR universes have characters that are detailed in multiple independent real-world sources, and easily are notable on their own right. The List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters is very useful, and so are the endless lists of lists for the various Dwarven dynasties of Middle Earth. Ceosad (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my modest efforts, I could only find some forum complain that the Sword of Truth has boring philosophy and review pages claiming that it is horrible badly written fantasy. Meanwhile there is an endless wealth of sources on Westeros and Middle Earth. Like this book, and look at the numerous references already used here. WP:LISTN clearly states that: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources - -". This will mean that this article clearly fails notability. Furthermore, WP:MUSTBESOURCES would be violated if this article is kept, as we cannot prove notability without any sources. Ceosad (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise with Redirect to Sword of Truth article itself as it is beneficial sometimes to have a separate characters article and I thought of keeping, but this one seems best linked instead to the article itself instead of its own article. SwisterTwister talk 08:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ceosad and SwisterTwister, what do you think of what I stated above to Sandstein about the media attention these characters' television counterparts have received? This is not much different than the television counterparts for the The Walking Dead comics and the A Song of Ice and Fire characters having gotten far more media attention than their book versions; see, for example, the Rick Grimes and Daenerys Targaryen articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:WAX. You'd need to find sources for these characters, not for those from other, apparently better-known franchises.  Sandstein  16:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the main point from my previous statements still applies. This group of characters is not being discussed as a group in the sources. Unless there are many sources which do so, I cannot support keeping this article. The argument that a few main characters are notable on their own right, is a completely unrelated one. If the whole group of characters/cast/whatever is being discussed in the sources, then the coverage may justify inclusion of unimportant and non-notable characters in the list. I agree with Sandstein's previous arguments. Redirecting per SwisterTwister is fine by me. Ceosad (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, there is no need to cite WP:WAX when I already stated above "I'm invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS." It's an essay that can be used to support a matter or not support a matter. I have sources, but I don't need to hurry the process just because you want this article deleted. I don't like being forced to save an article; never have and never will.
Ceosad, I appreciate you weighing in again. But I don't see how the characters need to be discussed as a group; that is not a WP:Notability requirement or a "List of" requirement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I struck part of my comment above because I see you mean WP:LISTN. Above, SSTflyer feels that it does pass WP:LISTN. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant WP:LISTN. By the way Flyer22 Reborn, what sources do you mean? I would like to see them. I do not think here is any hurry, since this AfD probably gets extended at least once again, and I am on a semi-wikibreak due to the holidays anyway. Also, I would like to ask sst✈ why he has concluded that this article does pass the WP:LISTN guideline.
WP:LISTN is a somewhat loose guideline, and I guess I tend to have phobias about WP:INDISCRIMINATE fandom content. I do believe that the notability as a group is among the most important requirements for stand-alone lists. On the other hand I do recognize that some works have rather low inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. Practically everything related to a television series or other similar media can be properly justified in the end. Books have much harder time. However, I am not sure what to think about WP:CSC. Ceosad (talk) 06:37, 20 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. Normally I'd relist with only one !vote, but the rationale of insufficent notability was so comprehensively refuted that I believe going ahead and closing is the correct course of action. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uvaa[edit]

Uvaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Apart from IMDb, the only sources cited are three pages on a web site called www.bollywoodhungama.com, which provide nothing but lists of credits and a three-sentence plot summary. From a Google search for "Uvaa" most of the hits on the first couple of pages were such things as this Wikipedia article, IMDb, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc, also pages merely giving credits and similar soutine content. I also found a few reviews, but they were largely in either local news media, trade papers (e.g. the "International Business Times") or unreliable sources of one kind or another. (For example, what appeared from its tilte to be a review in the Times of India turned out to be a web page where members of the public are invited to submit their reviews, not a review by a Times of India journalist.) (A PROD was removed with an edit summary saying "I don't get this... do you think it is a hoax or something?" However, that doesn't seem to make much sense, as the PROD reason was "No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines": nothing to do with being a hoax.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Moved to Muhammad Hujjat Kuh-Kamari. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 08:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hojjat Kouhkamare'i[edit]

Muhammad Hojjat Kouhkamare'i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG.......By a million light years. The references section seems to be "self created" as well. I would like voters to click on google search and see that we at Wikipedia are the only people who believe in the existence of this fine gentleman. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the new name given by HyperGaruda I would like to withdraw this nomination, provided that the page is renamed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Try Muhammad Hujjat Kuh-Kamari. But seriously though, those who don't know how to properly transliterate ar/fa-script make me cringe. I'd really like Mehdi ghaed -and others who are clearly not fluent in English- to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead of creating and moving articles to mainspace on their own. Please please please have your submissions checked by someone else first, I beg you. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda it still fails GNG as far as I can see. If you can just point me towards a source discussing this in depth, I'll incorporate it into the article. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeatlastChitchat: I've added two seemingly reliable sources. Both had only a couple of sentences about the man, but it was enough to write a stub/start-class biography from birth to death. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda: can you please rename the page. If you are right that this guy is named Muhammad Hujjat Kuh-Kamari then I will withdraw this nomination. It was kinda shock to me to see that there was not a single mention of the guy on the entire internet. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry @FreeatlastChitchat:, but if you are not aware of how transliteration works (i.e. that there are multiple possible ways to write a Farsi/Arabic name in Latin letters, and that there isn't any 'right' or 'wrong' transliterations) then you shouldn't post AfDs on such topics. You can write محمد as 'Muhamed', 'Mohammed', 'Muhammed', 'Mohamed', 'Mahomet', etc. 'Kuh-Kamari' and 'Kouhkamare'i' are the same name. --Soman (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to article creators to come up with the best name for a new article. The best transliteration is the one that is used the most in English sources. If the article creator cannot find transliterations in English sources, he/she should check WP:MOSAR or WP:PMOS for a standard "Wikipedian" transliteration, instead of guessing what it should be. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: and what does one do when confronted with an article which has zero mention in google? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would see the three interwikis (Arabi, Azeri, Farsi) and google on versions of the name. --Soman (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i Think that references such as Al Daree of Aqa Bozorg and Maddarresi Tabrizi are popular and known..even you could see the name of book in these pages:Agha_Bozorg_Tehrani,Āqā Bozorg also compiled a biographical dictionary of Shiʿite scholars as a companion to al-Ḏarīʿa. The dictionary has the general title Ṭabaqāt aʿlām al-šīʿa, but each section, pertaining to the scholars of a given century, also has a separate title. Three sections have been published so far: Nawābeḡ al-rowwāt fī rābeʿat al-meʾāt (Beirut, 1390/1970), dealing with Shiʿite traditionists of the 4th Islamic century; al-Kerām al-mobarrara fi’l-qarn al-ṯāleṯ baʿd al-ʿašara (Naǰaf, 1374-77/1954-57), on scholars of the 13th century; and Noqabāʾ al-bašar fi’l-qarn al-rābeʿ ʿašar (Naǰaf, 1373-88/1953-68), on scholars of the 14th century.http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aqa-bozorg-tehrani-shaikh--m,sharaf (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be sufficiently notable. See for example https://books.google.com/books?id=KGo3AQAAIAAJ, where he is referred to at ayatollah. https://books.google.com/books?id=AW64CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA595 mentions him as a 'great jurist' (الفقيه الكبير السيد محمد الحجة الكوهكمري). --Soman (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG considering the refs. It's another awkward nomination. Mhhossein (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and this seems applicable enough for now closing as historic subjects such as these will surely have better even if archived and unavailable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 17 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry G. Blaivas[edit]

Jerry G. Blaivas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Paid for spammy article. Top doctors is a PR organization which appears to be including Wikipedia articles in their packages.

The amazing thing is the first ref is to Wikipedia http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/11674323 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted here [6] and it contains some text that is word for word the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That deletion was via a prod, so we can't use it as the basis for a G4 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I think he passes WP:PROF#C1 for having highly-cited publications (search Google scholar for author:jg-blaivas) but the current article is highly promotional and horribly sourced (filled with many sources, all bad). I could change my mind if someone is willing to take the effort to severely trim and properly source this. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as David. --Quadraxis (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I failed to find any references from seconday reliable sources to establish this person's notability. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above nominations. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unneeded puff piece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW delete and WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 23 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhr Razi and development of Kalam[edit]

Fakhr Razi and development of Kalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

100% OR and COATRACK. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


keep: as it is clear the references are valid according to Wikipedia and the subject of article creates and follows of a popular viewpoint among scholars.it is not at all OR.i try to create a new article on new subject which is not existed before.--m,sharaf (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COATRACK. Barely legible essay about something in Islam, but nobody know what.--Yopie (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This is a personal reflection on history by someone, not an actual notable topic per wide coverage in academic sources. Even the title reads like a journal article, not an encyclopedia entry. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as i mentioned above, the idea of this article not only is not personal but emphasized by scholars which referred to him in the Article.can you show which part of article is a personal opinion. i think there is not such a thing at all. at the same time i' am wondered that how it is possible that some academic source emphasized on the subject of Article but some editors express no body know what. it is really denying evidences.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing left to merge, since the entire non-Coatrack section is already present at Fakhr Razi, including all linguistic errors. It was very difficult to find out what the text is about, but I think the subject is Fakhr Razi's philosophical/theological view. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total coatrack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 22 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Haider Blogger[edit]

Ghulam Haider Blogger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable blogger. All references are to self-published and/or non reliable sources. Wittylama 11:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article listed above has now been deleted. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this basically has the exact fate as the other AfD, nothing to suggest even minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article appears promotional. no reliable sources. The article fails to establish notability of this living person, who on current evidence does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable bloggers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 22 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Nicolas[edit]

Ivan Nicolas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Problem is the WP:NOTABILITY. Article cites only one source, but it is not reliable independent source (it's some kind of personal directory). I tried Google News search, but did not find a single source about this subject [7]. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject is not notable and the only source included on the page, Breaking Tunes does not seem reliable. Meatsgains (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hardly even much here and nothing at all to suggest considerably better coverage and notability for the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 17 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) 02:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Jones Adams[edit]

Agnes Jones Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

apparently not notable.WP is an encyclopedia , not a site for WP:MEMORIALs. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this is an example of being non-notable, especially with mentions in multiple academic texts. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was an early pioneer of black women's associations in the United States and part of a long line of civil rights in the country. As a historical figure, she passes GNG as being written about in several RS. Her speech about "Social Purity" was important and discussed in several sources. I'm going to add the other sources I found right now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is true that as written when nominated this articles was horrible, at times I believe including word for word quotes from 1920s sources that were just plain unreadable, either that or paraphrases that muddled what the source text said to make it barely inteligible. I cut out some of the unworkable lines. She clearly is notable, even if it still is a sub-standard written article. AFD is not for removing poorly written articles, but those on unnotable people. We still keep overly sentimental and memorializing articles on people who are notable. I might remove the line about her death, it adds nothing to the article, but that does not change the fact that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the organizations she was a part of almost certainly deserve their own articles. It is possible that some of the red links currently in the article should actually lead to redirects. I have to admit I am unfamiliar with most turn of the 19th to 20th century era women's organizations, with the exception of a few in Utah and the two main national ones, which I think had merged by 1900 anyway. Women's organization history of that era needs a lot more coverage in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I am sure you are aware DGG, these social clubs were an important part of the anti-lynching movement, as well as suffrage and education for women.[8] That she was the leader of the Boston Branch of the NAACP [9], that she was a founder of the Women’s Era Club and a presiding officer of the National Federation of Colored Women’s meeting [10] show she was a respected leader. That there are articles written about her in The Crisis [11] also shows notability. I have no access to early issues but perhaps someone does and the source clearly states she is discussed. SusunW (talk) 05:14, 21 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. As mentioned by MichaelQSchmidt, if this comes to life, then it can be restored without prejudice. The Bushranger One ping only 07:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruler (film)[edit]

Ruler (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The primary page author reverted a previous deletion template with the message "IF ANYBODY LIKED MY STORY AND ARE TRYING TO DELETE THIS PAGE THEIR WHOLE FAMILY WILL DIE, THIS IS MY CURSE." I think that constitutes CSD G3, but I can't really justify that anyone would see that edit to actually delete it. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The edit that NicatronTg is referring to is this one. However, the fact that an editor once made a vandalism edit to an article is not a reason to delete the article: speedy deletion criterion G3 applies only if the whole page is vandalism. The nominator has therefore given no meaningful reason for deletion. However, as I explain below, I do think there is another valid reason for deleting the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unsourced article on an "upcoming" film: no evidence whatever of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using some WP:BEFORE:
title alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer/director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
music:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: "Ruler movie" "Kona Venkat" "Rudrapati Ramana Rao" "SLV cinema" "Ravi Teja" "Radhika Apte" "Keeravani"
  • Keep: Article should be kept, but there are currently no sources--so get sources!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Crew[edit]

Jason Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both the GNG and Pornbio. Awards are all scene related except one which was from a non-notable award ("Golden Dickie") that only took place one time only from an online vendor (Rad Video) that even awarded two of the awards to its own produced videos (EuroRad titles). Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only claim to notability is an obscure one-shot award. Only significant coverage is a promotional paragraph in a porn blog. Independent searches for RS coverage yield only republished press releases in the porn trade press. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's sound and accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing to suggest better for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 23 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) clpo13(talk) 08:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Mahajan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rahul Mahajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still seems hardly notable and improvable and I confirm and echo my PROD: "Apparently only best known for Bigg Boss and my searches only found expected gossip news and controversies so there's hardly enough for better notability and improvement here.". It's also worth mentioning with this that there have been no recent events or otherwise news about him aside from a few controversies (also resulting with noticeable vandalism to this article). Notifying past AfDers of this current AfD nomination: Sanskari, Blueraspberry, Dwaipayanc, Redtigerxyz and Anupmehra. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was because of his fathers assassination. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD is going nowhere till the nominator clarifies which Rahul Mahajan is being talked about. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:46, 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 07:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – pinging @SwisterTwister: per the question posted above by Rsrikanth05. North America1000 07:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rsrikanth05 and Northamerica1000, in case it wasn't obvious, this nomination is not about the blogger, it is about the exact subject this current article is about which is "Big Boss contestant". I'll note I have not once mentioned the blogger article himself including with this nomination. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I stand my previous afd comment that, whatever he did after his father demise went into press and these stuffs make him notable. Even his visit to a temple was covered by national media houses with heading- Rahul Mahajan prays at temple.
I'd rectify my earlier mistake for not listing the relevant sources to substantiate the notability claim, if I had been it would not be here yet again. Here they are tons of them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. *tired* These all are only few from the Oneindia news portal. For more please click here, here, here, here and of course, Google it!!
Note: I may not be able to answer any follow-ups. Thanks! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a Google search will reveal in 2015, even his separation and divorce with his wife and then her remarriage was news. His entry in Bigg Boss season 8 and TV appearances [12] were also covered.Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are clear evidence of notability. GNG is met. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:40, 22 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) 02:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bower[edit]

Matthew Bower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My PROD was removed with no explanations at all and what my PROD said was: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable as it seems he's been associated with some notable acts but is apparently not notable himself and the best my searches found were a few passing mentions. Hardly much for a better article here it seems.". At best, it simply seems there's no solid independent notability for an article about him and all my searches found were expected passing mentions, nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search found plenty of coverage. --Michig (talk) 22:06, 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 07:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Assuming that references are added and improved. Abovethestorm (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:44, 22 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. Per A11 - Wikipedia is not for stuff that was blatantly made up one day. The Bushranger One ping only 12:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kickstyle[edit]

Kickstyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sources that use this terminology so I suspect it's a little used neologism, at least at the present. If the term eventually gets adopted more widely, the article can always be recreated. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A11. Term doesn't seem to be used by anyone anywhere outside of this article. Blackguard 20:47, 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 07:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO; I am unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this term.  Gongshow   talk 20:43, 17 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bennett (businessman)[edit]

Mike Bennett (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Closely related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3 Media (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol + with a similar pattern of appearing to have lots of references to show notability, however they are either false, dead or do not support the claims made. All articles possibly created by his staff. Does not meet GNG — Rod talk 19:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems best known for E3 and there's hardly even anything to suggest independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 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 07:47, 16 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Island Aviation[edit]

Island Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third-party reliable sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Kelly hi! 17:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at best as there may be better local coverage therefore familiar attention is needed but my searches apparently found nothing better than some mentions here and there. Notifying past PRODer B. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 17 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Campbell Johnson[edit]

Ben Campbell Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:PROF. Emeritus just means retired and is not a distinguished chair. The publications are devotional, not academic. The overall article is part of a promotional campaign for faculty at the seminary. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- devotional publication is not incompatible with academic when the author holds a professorial position at a degree-granting school of theology. His books have significant library holdings, especially "The Jesus Story" with 615 worldcat holdings and close to 1,700 holding for other books. Suggests a writer of significant interest and reputation. A web search ("Ben Campbell Johnson" translation) shows that his paraphrase translations of the new testament have been used often, which is a form of citation for the field of preaching. Only two JSTOR citations is weak though. I do not see this as part of a promotional campaign (AGF). The author of the article created 28 articles of which at least 9 (nominator) or at least 14 (my count) are notable enough to not warrant AfD -- see User:Jcstanley/my articles for more discussion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
((other books: Beyond the Ordinary 130; Pastoral Spirituality 170; Discerning God's Will 140; Rethinking Evangelism 156; Evangelism Primer, 147; Rebels in the Church, 110; Speaking of God, 118; Hearing God's Call, 118; Heart of Paul, 117; five more books between 70 and 100 holdings)) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep -- That is an Impressive list of publications, even if not all are academic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:47, 16 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) 02:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hammerschlagen[edit]

Hammerschlagen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game (or as COI editors insist we must call it, this "brand") fails WP:GNG for lack of significant reliable coverage. Currently there are six references. The only "independent reliable source" is a one-paragraph item from 2010 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The others are blog entries, Trademarkia, and the company's website. In a search just now I found a few mentions of "the traditional German game Hammerschlagen" (which is incorrect; there are traditional German nail-driving games, but an American defined and trademarked the specific game Hammerschlagen). But I could not find enough material to build an article about the nail-driving games, and I found nothing at all about the "brand" Hammerschlagen. MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have a history with this article. In February of this year, the self-described CEO of the company demanded on the talk page in very legalistic language that we clean up "factual errors". His main purpose was to defend his trademarks, and further to insist that this article could ONLY be about the trademarked version that they market (vs. generic games called Hammerschlagen that are not theirs). Although I expressed doubts about notability at the time, I helped to clean up and improve the article. I thought we had stabilized it. But over the past few days three different IPs have posted to the article, changing the word "game" to "brand" at every usage (and creating some ridiculously redundant sentences in the process). That does it; I have had it with this article. I should have tagged it as non-notable back in February. Now it is not only non-notable but promotional, with representatives of the company repeatedly tweaking it for their own purposes. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Who would ever have thought that banging nails into a piece of wood could lead to such a load of legalistic nonsense? Unbelievable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Necrothesp. I got involved here because we want Wikipedia to stop encouraging the public to steal our property by using our trademarks without our permission. To promote such theft is extremely unethical: it is no different than Wikipedia promoting the unlawful use of Coke's trademarks and encouraging the public to engage in such illegitimate use. Wikipedia's promotion to the public that it is acceptable to infringe upon our brand and the false promotion that Hammerschlagen is a generic word for a nail driving competition causes damage to us (called dilution). Such damage to Hammerschalgen would likely cause us to stop being able to do business under our brand and likely lead to the loss of our employee's and affiliates' jobs. My involvement here is to protect our employees, customers, and affiliates for obvious reasons; I'm not interested in using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. Jim at WRB (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Thank you for informing me that you intend to delete the Hammerschlagen page for a lack of sources (I got an e-mail about it). It is unfortunate, but significant reliable coverage is limited simply because we are a cottage industry. I am still willing to help provide content and sources to this article. I know that you don't want us to directly edit Hammerschlagen, and I'm extremely confused as to how to give input. If you give me a place to provide information and a medium to ask questions when I need help, I'll do just that. Also, I noted that you are concerned with is the public's alteration of the article. Clearly, the public recognizes that brand of hammerschlagen is exactly that: a brand. It is not a game. "Hammerschalgen" is not the generic name for a nail driving competition just as Harley-Davidson is not the generic name for motorcycle and Miller is not the generic name for beer. You stated that "representatives of the company [are] repeatedly tweaking it for their own purposes." I want to be very clear about this: when we were asked to not to alter the article, we did just that. I would appreciate it if you would please not blame us for the public's alterations. Jim at WRB (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the past, I was told to create a draft. When I did, it was deleted without specifying what exactly was wrong so it could be fixed. The references to news articles and other content I gave on the talk page have been removed. When I ask questions about Wikipedia's rules or how to give input, I am ignored. I'm more than willing to contribute, and would appreciate not being swept under the rug and blamed for things I did not do. Jim at WRB (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jim at WRB, I'm glad you got the message. I understand your frustration. What is needed to save this article is references with significant coverage, such as news stories that are specifically about Hammerschlagen. I'll take a look at that deleted draft and see if there were sources in it that can be used. As for the recent changes, insisting that this must be called a "brand" rather than a "game" sounds like something that would be of interest only to the company and its lawyers, not to the "public", which is why I made that assumption. This discussion will last for a week, and if additional sources can be found that meet the requirements of the WP:General notability guideline or of WP:CORP, it should be OK. If you can find additional sources, you might want to list them here, so that they are visible to everyone evaluating the article. If they result in the article being kept, I will add them to the article myself. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at your draft. No wonder it was deleted! It was mostly a lecture about the sanctity of the trademark, and the reference citations are full of legalistic disclaimers. But it did have references. Here are the references that are actually about Hammerschlagen; discussants can use them to evaluate notability. This and this are independent sources. This and this and this are from events where Hammerschlagen was played; the information was supplied by Hammerschlagen. This is an excellent history of the restaurant and family, but does not mention Hammerschlagen. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN. Considering that I have been trying to get Wikipedia to recognize the legitimacy of our brand (versus its promotion that Hammerschlagen is a generic name for a game), I can understand why you would assume that we made the "brand" vs "game" modification: I hope those edits have not caused hard feelings between us. (Pages like Harley-Davidson refer to the brand as a brand, so it must not be that far out.) Also, thank you for pointing out that the draft was too focused on the Hammerschlagen wordmark: now I know what, specifically, was at issue I know what to be mindful of in the future. For your consideration, here are some references (I see you have also found a few):
• http://www.citypages.com/news/dead-games-6705157 (Our vending in St. Paul, MN)
• http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2015/11/20/harley-davidson-museums-black-friday-beer-fest/ (Our vending in Milwaukee)
• http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/Blogs/Minnesota-Journeys/September-2012/Celebrate-Oktoberfest-at-Gasthaus-Bavarian-Hunter/ (Our vending at our "home")
• http://www.startribune.com/revving-up-for-oktoberfest/103640064/ (More about us at "home")
• http://www.seattleite.com/oktoberfest-northwest/ (Our brand at Okoberfest Northwest)
• http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130921/NEWS01/709219941 (The Monroe Oktoberfest is no longer.)
• http://irishtastefest.com/games.html (a description of us and our vending)
• http://www.stmarysbrewfest.com/hammerschlagen.php (another bit about us and our vending)
• http://www.thenewsdispatch.com/news/article_1b068a1e-af1e-11e4-906d-a36bd4c41ab8.html (our brand in Michigan)
I would greatly appreciate it if Wikipedia would take some sort of action to communicate to the public that it is not acceptable to steal our property by infringing upon the trademarks and copyrights of our brand without our permission. I know you may not be able to say this explicitly, so maybe the answer is to create a separate section in the article describing the elements of our brand to the public (something like what was done with Coke, Real Hotels, or Sony)? It is the weekend, and we're busy pounding nails. I'll try to put more together about this for your review as soon as I can. In the mean time, would these references suffice? (There are more references in this list than, say, Apfelkorn, Schnapps, Sakura (cigarette), and The Troubles in Templepatrick in example.) Jim at WRB (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source with a little more detail: http://lacrossetribune.com/stories/news/autumn-sun-tabs-oktoberfest-festivities/article_b4c6b340-c3c5-5679-9a10-7c69aa602711.html Jim at WRB (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disregarding the frankly ridiculous sideshow, I can't find enough significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Any mentions I found where passing mentions, most of them on articles about Oktoberfest celebrations. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see any evidence of real notability. Just a minor sideshow game which has provoked far too much legalistic nonsense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As with the others I don't see sufficient significant coverage for this to be considered notable; there's a lot of passing mentions and promotion but not enough to pass GNG. (Alas, I can but regret that WP:HAMMER doesn't apply here.) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:51, 23 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 keep. per SK1 - I genuinely couldn't find bugger all but maybe I did search her entire name ?... I dunno but thanks Wikimandia finding & listing 'em :) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Smolnikova[edit]

Maria Smolnikova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actress, Her RU WP article doesn't have any better sources either, Can't find anything for her Russian name (even on RU Google!) and her English name only has mentions so fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 16:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I didn't care for Stalingrad but according to the article and her IMDb page she's had "multiple" major roles -- includes Daughter and this new Fort Ross film -- to meet WP:NACTOR. Not all of her roles have been "major" but these three are, and three is my own rule of thumb for "multiple." Also Stalingrad was an immensely big deal in the history of modern Russian cinema and her role was key. Finally, I don't know how you're doing your Russian Google search but I had no difficulty in finding results for her using her Cyrillic name, including this interview. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubt about it she does meet NACTOR but BLPs need to meet GNG too which she doesn't, The interview source is great but there obviously needs to be more sources than just an interview. –Davey2010Talk 17:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." And how would you know if she meets GNG or not, you couldn't even do a decent Russian Gsearch? Look all of this policy stuff has got to be leavened with a bit of commonsense. I for one am satisfied she meets NACTOR and is notable, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err I think you'll find I did do a decent search.... Just because I can't find sod all doesn't mean anyone else can't!, Like with all my AFDs if people can find stuff I can't I'll then withdraw!, I'm not going to argue - IMHO she fails GNG which more often than not overrides NACTOR but whatever, –Davey2010Talk 19:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 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 07:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage - well known in Russia [13],[14],[15],[16],[17]. Note here she's referred to as "the brightest actress of our day"[18]. @Davey2010: I'm not sure why you couldn't find coverage, unless you tried to search for her full name in quotes with patronymic (middle). —МандичкаYO 😜 19:29, 18 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 by Bishonen as G11, spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Practice[edit]

Richmond Practice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like self-promo. Additionally a family-owned private medical clinic is probably not notable enough to get an article. Yann (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly not yet notable for a solid even generally notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self promotional and notability not demonstrated. The current references do not manage to demonstrate notability according to WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. In addition the sources are not sufficiently independent. I tried reducing some of the inappropriately promotional content at the start of this year towards a more WP:NPOV but it appears since then the promotional content has been reintroduced and even more added. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. This is 100% an advertisement. PS, the creator was indeffed as a sock in 2013. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 17 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.  Sandstein  11:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Gifford[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gloria Gifford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was actually PRODding this when I noticed the first AfD so here we re. Original PROD message: "Seemingly non-notable and otherwise not considerably known actress aside from two best known works Halloween II and 48 Hours, searches found nothing considerably better so unlikely for there to be any better improvement.". The searches were at News, Books, browsers, Highbeam and Newspapers Archive but only Books and Newspapers found considerably results and IMDb lists no awards and no other notable works. It's worth noting this was restored because of a November 2014 request but no considerable improvement has happened. Notifying entertainment industry users Onel5969 and MichaelQSchmidt for input. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She's certainly been in several notable (if completely forgettable) films, as well as some pretty good films. The question is about how significant her roles were. And here is where the borderline comes in. I simply don't know, and it is difficult to ascertain with available sources. Since most of her possible more significant roles were pre-internet, that makes it more difficult to research. So, I'm going to err on the side of caution. One could, and I will, argue that her roles in California Suite, Halloween II (this is unquestionably a notable role as head nurse Alvez), Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story, and Vice Versa. Other roles which I really can't ascertain how notable they were occur in Going Berserk and D.C. Cab, although they were by no means "starring" roles, as the article currently states. I've seen many of these films, but I only remember her from one, and while a very small role, it was memorable, as a hooker in 48 Hrs.. Onel5969 TT me 12:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTEBLP for lack of adequate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. No claim made in lead for notability. Fails WP:NACTOR. As Onel5969, a keep recommender, pointed out it is difficult to ascertain with available sources, because the sources aren't adequate, either in the article or as found in my searching. --Bejnar (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:43, 16 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. Unopposed.  Sandstein  11:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! (Israeli series)[edit]

Now That's What I Call Music! (Israeli series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-prodded, but I suspect confusion in the editor who removed the PROD. A non-notable, non-charting album that fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 talk 14:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 14:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 14:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I deprodded it. My impression based on the title was that it was an article about the Israeli series of albums as a whole, not the first in the series. I did not reinstate the PROD when realizing the latter is the case because (a) the albums series is likely notable and (b) it doesn't make sense to PROD just the first in a series. I don't know that it passes WP:NALBUMS, so I'm not issuing a !vote at this time, but it seems problematic to try to delete only #1, when we have articles about each album in the series through Now That's What I Call Music! 17 (Israeli series). It's pretty rare for the first of a numbered series of subjects to be among the least notable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites I wasn't solely planning on having the first article in the series deleted and leave it there. If you take a look at my PROD log, you'll see I nominated the first in the Israeli and South African series around the same time. Once the first in the South African series was deleted from the expired PROD, I PROD'd the other twenty-seven articles of that series, all of which were deleted with no fuss. That was my intention for the Israeli series also, but seeing as we're here, I'd also call for the deletion of the rest of the Israeli series. Azealia911 talk 19:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as this album nor any other in this particular series have received coverage in reliable sources. Each of the other volumes could have been nominated as well. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:42, 16 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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 12:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Blu (rapper)[edit]

Sky Blu (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged since 2012 as needing more sources, I did some research and came up with nothing other than the usual YouTube stuff and social media. In my opinion this fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The most interesting thing I've seen is the alleged altercation with Mitt Romney. [19]. Jacona (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I opposed the creation of this article from the breakup with Redfoo / LMFAO, but the artist meets the minimum requirements, having charted as a solo act and having been part of a duo with a number one hit. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 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 07:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. #1 on the chart for "Party Rock Anthem" as part of LMFAO establishes notability. Jacona (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for as it seems there's enough for something of a separate article for now. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 17 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 Nevada USA. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 08:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Valdez[edit]

Jenny Valdez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She fails WP:NMODEL and per WP:NOPAGE should be redirected to Miss Nevada USA the only potentially notable title she won. Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:04, 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 07:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Nevada USA#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (plausibility, cheapness, etc.). - The Bushranger One ping only 12:08, 20 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 Vermont USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Angus[edit]

Brooke Angus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This women won Miss Vermont USA and did not win a couple other pageants. Per WP:NOPAGE her name should be redirected to the Miss Vermont USA page. Most winners of the title do not have pages. Sourcing here is really weak. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  10:05, 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 07:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Vermont USA#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (plausibility, cheapness, etc.). - The Bushranger One ping only 12:08, 20 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 Alabama USA#Winners . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Moore (pageant titleholder)[edit]

Rebecca Moore (pageant titleholder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This young lady's name should be redirected to Miss Alabama USA according to WP:NOPAGE. Only cite outside the pageant organization's own page is a local paper mention in "Around your Corner" section which looks like pretty local coverage as in WP:NOTNEWS Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 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 07:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Alabama USA#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (plausibility, cheapness, etc.). - The Bushranger One ping only 12:07, 20 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 Alabama USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Tinney[edit]

Jessica Tinney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This young lady's name should be redirected to Miss Alabama USA according to WP:NOPAGE Just routine mentions in media as they relate to that event. See WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 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 07:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide any RS that cover the year of service in depth please? Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On further reflection I have decided that my previous views do not conform to the reality of such positions, and will support deletion of this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:35, 23 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 Alabama USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Michelle Brown[edit]

Candace Michelle Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This young lady's name should be redirected to Miss Alabama USA according to WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment she was born in 1968, making her 47, calling her young seems a bit much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People yet? Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Legacypac, what in the world are you doing? Surely we all know there are marginal pageant winners articles out there, but this person was a state major pageant winner who also placed second in the Miss USA pageant. Being that it was 1992 it takes a little more effort to find the sources, but they are out there.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Alabama USA#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (plausibility, cheapness, etc.), and as described in my musings on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Fleck. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:07, 20 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 Alabama Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Baumann[edit]

Carla Baumann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of a handful of winners of Miss Alabama Teen USA that have their own article (the other won an adult pageant later). No real claim of notability and per WP:NOPAGE should be redirected to the main article where she is presented best on a list of winners. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Winners of state teen pageants cannot be notable on that alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Alabama Teen USA#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (plausibility, cheapness, etc.). - The Bushranger One ping only 12:06, 20 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 Alaska Teen USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Degen Kasper[edit]

Degen Kasper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BIO sourced only to the sponsoring organization. Other then one winner who went on to some business notability many years ago, this is the only winner of Miss Alaska Teen USA with an article. That suggests strongly this article should be deleted, and if not deleted, redirected as suggested in WP:NOPAGE. Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. Not enough here for a stand-alone article. Jacona (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Winners of teen pageants are not notable for that alone, at least at the state level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This pagaent gets more atention on Wikipedia than it does in Alaska itself. Winners are not automatically notable and nothing here indicates to me that this particualr winner was notable for some other reason. A redirect does not seem warranted as this is not really a likely search term. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A search for the exact term turns up all of 516 hits, almost entirely Wikipedia mirrors or social media promotion with scattered hits for Kaspersky Antivirus 2016. The only thing even coming close to substance was unavailable to view because of its derogatory nature. As for the nominator's statement "Other then one winner who went on to some business notability many years ago, this is the only winner of Miss Alaska Teen USA with an article", you must have overlooked Brandee McCoskey, an article in the exact same boat as this one.
I take it the first part of the nominator's statement referred to Linda Fickus. I haven't previously disclosed this, but unfortunately, that article isn't in terrible shape due to COI. It was created and largely written by her sister, Deborah Luper. I have also worked on that article: their mother was my daughter's great-aunt, plus I have other familial ties to the Fickuses going back to the 1970s. Luper herself is a former Miss Alaska USA and the far better known of the two sisters. However, she had a public feud with the city government of Wasilla and then-mayor Dianne Keller some years back, as a result withdrawing from political activity and returning to the law enforcement profession, so she may be seeking to avoid the kind of exposure/publicity a Wikipedia article can bring. The mention of "some business notability" further illustrates how Wikipedia often gets it wrong. The real notability there lies in the Fickus family as a whole, specifically WRT their living/the children's upbringing out in the middle of nowhere. By the 1960s and 1970s, living on a homestead hundreds of miles from civilization had become more a stereotype of Alaska (no doubt reinforced by popular media of the day such as North to Alaska, Grizzly Adams, Beach/London/Service adaptations, etc. etc.) than a realistic way of life. The Fickuses earned quite a bit of media attention over the decades for their rural lifestyle, but I dunno if much or any of it can be found on the web — the last such piece I remember reading was published in 1996. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Alaska Teen USA#Winners as suggested by the nominator and for the usual reasons - unlike as suggested by Beeblebrox, this is a reasonable enough search term (at the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, if Predator Plane can survive at RfD, then this too clears plausibility), it avoids somebody coming along and going "oh, there's nothing here! I'll (re)create it", and redirects are sufficiently cheap that they do, as I recall, take up less server space than an outright deletion does - hence the saying "redirects are cheap". - The Bushranger One ping only 12:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I missed the third Miss Teen Alaska, and it is a nothing burger of an article too. Just sent it to AfD as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandee McCoskey I've found that the National level of this pageant has not been televised for years now, moved to YouTube. I've also looked through the Miss America Teen lists and they don't get articles either, unless there is some other reason for becoming famous. Legacypac (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:08, 20 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. Consensus to keep following relisting The Bushranger One ping only 12:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fam-Lay[edit]

Fam-Lay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exactly what my PROD says: "Searches found nothing better at all aside from one local 2003 news article.". There's simply nothing to suggest better notability and improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Deleteper nom. Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 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 07:21, 16 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 17:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Euro Digital Songs[edit]

List of number-one Euro Digital Songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlike topping charts in the US and UK, there is no third-party coverage of songs reaching number one on a European digital songs chart. There's little one will find on the chart itself. All the sources come from Billboard, the primary source, who publishes the chart on its subscription site. Trying to have number-one song lists for every chart in Billboard amounts to WP:IINFO. If the chart or reaching number one on the chart had some significance with mentions in independent reliable sources, I can understand the existence of such lists in Wikipedia. I don't see how this one cuts it.

  • Note: I created this list in early 2013 after merging lists of individual years created by another editor who is no longer active into this one-page list. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete whole thing per nom. Legacypac (talk) 09:26, 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 07:20, 16 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joanie Greggains[edit]

Joanie Greggains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject does not seem to have been the subject of any significant coverage, and consequently does not pass our notability guidelines for biographical articles. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:28, 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 07:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs a closer look, there's enough to suggest that major improvement is possible. Videos of her Morning Strech show can be found online with thousands of views and she has recent media coverage [24], [25], [26]. Also had a radio show which is referenced to online and claims in the article of selling over 10 million exercise videos, being a teacher, special advisor role, and founder of "Fit Camps". TaylorMoore2 (talk) 04:07, 23 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NHAMO[edit]

NHAMO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film lacking non-trivial support. A Google search for support of the awards finds nothing to support the statement. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited and includes support for the Africa Movie Academy Awards details and the IMDB page. Please search for the support again and you will find the proper statements to support this. Let me know if any other corrections are needed. Thank you Wgcw (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:27, 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 07:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Should be kept, but article needs a lot of attention. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:12, 23 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) 16:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Adams (actor)[edit]

Jack Adams (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. His IMDB page lists him as having 3 uncredited roles in the 1920s. Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He never even made the credits, and nothing else suggests he is notable. Wikipedia is not IMDB, we do not need articles on everyone who ever appeared in a film, even if we limit it to films made by "Hollywood".John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:11, 16 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. The mice have been put out of their misery. The Bushranger One ping only 07:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mice Squad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Mice Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After removing all the OR (which I tried to find any source to substantiate) the article is down to one sentence. The creator of the comic strip is a redlink, and I can't find any RS or info that would justify an article on him either. Only a sentence in a book (the only source for this) and a couple online sales listings for drawings confirm this comic strip even existed. Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wish I could say that publishing in a newspaper would be enough to show notability, but I believe that this can only show notability if it's carried in multiple papers. A search for sourcing shows no coverage, so I'm forced to argue for deletion. I have no problem with this being re-created if anyone can provide sourcing, as there is the possibility of coverage that's not on the Internet. Until that point, though, this will be a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 19:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 19:45, 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 07:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, per Tokyogirl79. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Close after many weeks over 2 AfDs this as received no support and little interest. Can we put the mice out of their misery please? Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 22 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 Wyoming USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Scott[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Caroline Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a serious editing attempt to establish notability in the last AfD this is the entire article:

Caroline Scott is an American beauty pageant titleholder from Cheyenne, Wyoming. She won the titles Miss Wyoming Teen USA 2010 and Miss Wyoming USA 2015.[1][2][3] [4][5][6] In September 2014, Scott entered the Miss Wyoming USA where Scott was selected as "Most Photogenic".[7][8][9] In June 2015, Scott represented Wyoming at the Miss USA 2015 pageant but Unplaced.[10][11]

Per the rational at WP:NOPAGE this information is best presented on a list at Miss Wyoming USA and Miss Wyoming Teen USA. Delete the article as she is already on the appropriate lists. No one is disputing GNG here, only the best way to present her information about winning two events in context. The pageant companies remove the bios these are sourced to and put the winners on a list at the end of the pageant year, and so should we. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 19:43, 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 07:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Wyoming USA#Winners for the usual reasons (cheap, plausible, etc.). - The Bushranger One ping only 11:56, 20 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 Oregon#Winners. Half of these have already been redirected and Bushranger's !vote is the most convincing one here so redirect it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon)[edit]

Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon where the information is best presented in context as part of a list. The proposed redirect does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. In this case, she lost her title three weeks later for a technical violation (not resident in Oregon). Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Her term as Miss Oregon was just barely shorter than William Henry Harrison's as President of the United States and both had about equal impact on world history. Fortunately for both of them, notability is a threshold, not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious. Ya we know it's your article, but given that Miss Oregon accomplishs nothing in a year, doing nothing for three weeks is even less. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Doing something" is not a criteria for notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Period. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a policy that says winning this award confers notability or how this person is not a low profile individual barred from an article per NTEMP ? Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a major pageant winner in the United States who isn't found to meet WP:GNG at AFD, at least that's a very very common outcome. Pageants are dumb, but so are sports. That's life.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've participated in dozens of AfDs of state pageant winners that were deleted or redirected. Not all, but a lot go delete or redirect Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 20 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 Oregon#Winners . Consensus is to redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenie Steers[edit]

Stephenie Steers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon where the information is best presented in context as part of a list. The proposed redirect does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. At last report she was cleaning teeth, which does not suggest any future updates being done to this article. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition, and this is an encyclopedia, not a social media page requiring frequent status updates. - Dravecky (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to be expected as the article creator who put together the low quality sources and trivia. Its a formula article like a bunch of others. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on content, not contributors. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy paste keep vote with 3 seconds does not leave time to evaluate anything. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did do evaluation before I voted. This AfD has been sitting open for nearly two weeks, so there was plenty of time to do it, and to assume otherwise is in very bad faith. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then can you supply some evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." No blogs, fansites, or pageant company please. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 22 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 Oregon#Winners. no argument has been put forward that this overcomes BLP1E Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Fleck[edit]

Lucy Fleck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon where the information is best presented in context as part of list. The proposed redirect does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. She is a law clerk now according to the article, which is not likely to lead to notability. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition, and a career after crossing that threshold does not diminish in any way that notability. . - Dravecky (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any pageant topic article you have ever supported deleting? Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not relevant to this article and weirdly personal, bordering on a personal attack, but yes I have !voted delete on pageant-related articles that did not cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. Without spending a lot of time diving into my own edit history, I find Esha Tewari Pande and Divaa Victoria near the top. Most of the AfDs on this subject, however, close as "keep" because the subjects cross the verifiability and notability thresholds and it's therefore unsurprising that I'm usually opposed to deletion of these articles. - Dravecky (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to a bunch of discussions. The two you point to are both not winners, but I appreciate you may not serial keep. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where you reveal which pageant-related topic articles you have supported as keep, for balance. - Dravecky (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've never seen a pageant article nominated for deletion that I thought should be kept, but I've evaluated and edited/cleaned up dozens of pageant articles without trying to delete them. I don't AfD anyone I find that has a reasonable claim to notability beyond winning a state level contest (Miss America, notable film work, reality TV, substantial modeling, business etc). You can check my logs. I do believe presenting a state winner on a list is more appropriate and Miss America agrees with me. [27] Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, the Miss America Organization maintains individual pages (like this one) for each of the state winners as well as a list, just as Wikipedia has a list of all of the Miss Oregon winners and articles for individual winners. - Dravecky (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look carefully at the sources and claims here. This article follows the formula and style of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nichole_Mead where analysis of the abusive over sourcing includes links to Miss America state pages to prove she DID NOT compete.Well the same source can be used to prove I did not compete either. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP demands that claims in an article be reliably sourced. Proving a negative is often difficult but the cited source makes this possible even if, yes, the negative can be broadly applied. You, as the Time Person of the Year for 2006, may experience this in other areas, too. - Dravecky (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first section "Early pageants" is well sourced to prove she never won a non-notable local event. So that should be removed. Half the second section is about the girl who won after her. The third section "Vying for Miss America" details she was eliminated early and did not win, so should not be there. The last section names her parents and sibling (a BLP violation as they are not notable and have nothing to do with her claim to notability) and other trivia. After you cut this out there is little left. (before trimming before trimming Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Gutting the article of content and sourcing during this discussion borders on bad faith. - Dravecky (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring trivia and committing WP:NPF and WP:DOB on her and her family as you just did is not so good either. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly gutting the contents of the article, including the properly sourced standard biographical information, during this discussion is clearly editing in bad faith. Your edits went far beyond removing a few names or a date. - Dravecky (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are encouraged to improve articles at AfD. You reintroduced uncited information and removed appropriate tags. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Names of brothers, parents occupations etc are completely irrelevant to her (questionable) notability. Including exact date of birth is discouraged for privacy reasons. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean it should be. It highlights the lack of notability that not much can really be said about the person so it is bumped up with filler, which is completely unnecessary and a BLP issue. Polequant (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exact DOB is discouraged for minors. If it can be cited with a reliable source otherwise it is not discouraged; Wikipedia is not censored (and it coming from an existing reliable source makes privacy concerns utterly moot). - The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
That isn't what WP:DOB and WP:NPF say. WP:NOTCENSORED is completely irrelevant - a date of birth is not objectionable or controversial, which is what that guideline is addressing. Neither is wikipedia a mere data aggregator, it is edited, with editorial decisions to be made. Just because something is listed in a RS doesn't mean we have to include it. Given how many mirrors of wikipedia there are and how wikipedia articles tend to get to the top of search rankings, it is a valid concern. If a person wanted to try and limit this information at a future point it makes it incredibly difficult (which is why WP:NPF is relevant). And you know what, just looking at the article now, the date of birth isn't sourced. It can be worked out because some of the newspaper reports talk about it being her birthday on a certain day of the week, but they do not give her date of birth like wikipedia is doing here. Polequant (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title and notability is not temporary. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain, in the context of NTEMP why? Legacypac (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. She was notable, therefore she still is notable. However, see below. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners as suggested by the nom. This is a slightly different case than the other pageant winners; for most purposes, there would be more than enough coverage here to pass WP:GNG, and as notability is not temporary, that would be that. However, as a living person, WP:BLP1E comes into play, and both criteria 1 and 2 are clearly applicable here. The question is whether or not criteria 3 - the importance of the event - applies. If this was a national pageant it would be unquestionably inapplicable and, thus, it would default to GNG/NTEMP. But as she was the winner of a state pageant I believe that it does, and as all the available sources of any significance and reliability are for that one event, BLP1E applies. Therefore redirection is appropriate to the list of winners, as her name is both likely to be searched for in that context, it avoids somebody going "oh, a redlink!" and recreating the page, and, as always, redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete state pageant winners who have done nothing else of note who lack true indepth reporting on them are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners as WP:BLP1E. There is no evidence to the contrary. No reason for a separate article, such detailed coverage of her pagents notwithstanding. --Bejnar (talk) 18:39, 24 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Murphy[edit]

Jennifer Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon USA. This does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. In this case she had a reality TV appearance as well, but she is not an actor. Legacypac (talk) 05:24, 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 06:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as there may simply not be enough better coverage for a better notable article yet. Notifying past users Valfontis and Duffbeerforme who both removed promotional materials. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see here. Also has appeared in several programs and television independent from pageant, and subject can still be considered notable. MB298 (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Taken as a whole her various achievements and roles manage to squeak past the notability bar, barely, but barely is enough and notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass with, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:19, 22 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 Oregon USA#Winners.  Sandstein  11:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myah Moore[edit]

Myah Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon USA. This does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. Nearly all the winners are redlinked now, except for a handful that went on to some notable career later. See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 05:21, 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 06:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your logic here, but Myah Moore definitely does not pass WP:GNG, while Maya Moore's article receives over 5000 hits every month (Myah Moore has 177 hits over the last 30 days). Therefore, I think it will be much more useful to create a redirect to Maya Moore per WP:RPURPOSE as a plausible misspelling. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Oregon USA#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (cheap, plausible, etc.) - The Bushranger One ping only 11:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Miss Oregon article. Winner of state level pageants are not notable on that alone. However they are likely to be searched, and we have no reason to confuse things by creating redirects to other names that are similar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Miss Oregon winners section, more or less per JPL's argument. --joe deckertalk 07:29, 24 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 11:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Crooks[edit]

Clayton Crooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources (blogs). No hits in a search of major contemporary tech websites. czar 05:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 23:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 23:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now unfortunately as none of the listed coverage suggests even minimally better applicable notability. Draft and userfy if ever needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Not covered in any gaming sources that I can tell. For the angle of WP:AUTHOR, I tried to see if I could find any reviews or particulars on his books, but did not come across anything (Maybe to be expected as technical books). -- ferret (talk) 22:34, 18 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 Oregon USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Carlson (Miss Oregon USA)[edit]

Jessica Carlson (Miss Oregon USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon USA. This does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 19:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would have thought a state winner would naturally have sufficient coverage that this would be a slam dunk keep on notability. Amazingly, Jessica has since become a medical doctor. Every search I have thought of performing has not turned up any sources reflecting significant notability. Normally I would side with a delete reasoning, but I have a sense that I simply am not searching correctly. —EncMstr (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did she get married and change her name? Valfontis (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems she got her MD as Jessica Carlson, so no, traditionally she couldn't change her name. However I found some instances of DMDs and MDs changing their name (formerly not possible). —EncMstr (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you would be shocked how little coverage Miss States usually get. They generally are not noteable. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 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 06:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Oregon USA#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (cheap, plausible, etc.) - The Bushranger One ping only 11:37, 20 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 Oregon USA#Winners . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Machado[edit]

Allison Machado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon USA. This does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 19:39, 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 06:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 16 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 Oregon USA#Winners . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharitha McKenzie[edit]

Sharitha McKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be redirected to Miss Oregon USA. This does not require establishing notability, which is hard to do in these cases anyway. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 19:38, 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 06:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Oregon USA#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (cheap, plausible, etc.) - The Bushranger One ping only 11:36, 20 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) 02:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Rodriguez (Miss Texas USA)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ana Rodriguez (Miss Texas USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This woman is a pre-school teacher who happened to win a state level looks contest four years ago. This accomplishment is best present in context on a list (as suggested at WP:NOPAGE). Delete and insert a redirect to Miss Texas USA. Previous nomionation did not use the more applicable NOPAGE argument which does not require finding that there is no notability, it just deals with presentation. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Texas USA title and notability is not temporary. Subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition, and inaccurately describing the Miss Texas USA pageant as a "looks contest" reveals the nominator's motives for this swath of simultaneous deletion attempts. - Dravecky (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did not address NOPAGE. These are not called ugly contests, the contest is restricted to women, and they include swimsuit competitions - what do you call them? Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 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 06:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and at best also simply redirect also as mentioned above as the article may at least be notable for being crowned Miss Texas USA, yes maybe only marginally notable, but this may not be a deletion priority yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What's up with the seemingly derogatory "this woman is a pre-school teacher" comment? Many famous people go on to be drug addicts, porn stars, or perpetual reality show contestants. Being a teacher is far more honorable than that. As to notability, this article had THIRTY references when it was nominated for deletion, a number of them have significant coverage of the subject. I don't have time to review every AFD from this nominator, but there is reasonable cause to be concerned about the legitimacy of a number of these nominations.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-paste rapid vote with no time to evaluate anything. Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did do evaluation before I voted. This AfD has been sitting open for nearly two weeks, so there was plenty of time to do it, and to assume otherwise is in very bad faith. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The copy paste denial suggests otherwise. How about providing a link to some substantial coverage of this person or some actual analysis of how this person passes guidelines like WP:NTEMP, WP:NOPAGE or WP:NMODEL. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 22 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Best of Asha Bhosle, the Queen of Bollywood[edit]

The Very Best of Asha Bhosle, the Queen of Bollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete for lack of coverage and failure to meet WP:NALBUM notability guidelines. While Asha Bhosle seems to be notable, this compilation is not separately notable. It has only two passing mentions in books about Indian music. The web sources are all in lists, related sites, sales sites, or fan sites. There is no in depth coverage of this album. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. --Bejnar (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 02:10, 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 06:46, 16 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 Cocco. The Bushranger One ping only 17:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gunjō no Tani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gunjō no Tani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Does not meet the guidelines of Notability of Recordings nor does it show any indication of importance. QuartzReload (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 03:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 03:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 03:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cocco, no claim to notability, no independent notability. Note, this is actually the first discussion of this article, as the nominator apparently created the first page at 00:29, 9 December 2015, and this page four minutes later. Article has existed since 2009 when apparently it was "news". WP:NOTNEWS. --Bejnar (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cocco - Concur with assessment this article fails WP:N. Jun Kayama 16:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was my error. Apologies for that. Please note that this is the only intended nomination of the page by me. QuartzReload (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Just a heads up - I've closed the other AFD as was set up wrong - As noted above this discussion should be counted as the first, Technically the 1st AFD page should be deleted, Then this should be moved to the first AFD and then this page(redirect) should be deleted........ Yeah It's too much fucking around! .. so to save time and to make life easier we'll just imagine this is the first AFD . –Davey2010Talk 02:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 16 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki and John Pranksters in Love[edit]

Nikki and John Pranksters in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm mildly mixed on this myself. I came across this via a post at BLP/N by Marchjuly, where they expressed concern that the page was predominantly sourced with YT videos and various sources that weren't really usable since they were SPS. The only offhand usable source was a Wired article.

Searching brings up very little even when looking under the people's names and their channel handles. They are popular - that cannot be denied - but I don't really see a true depth of coverage here and popularity itself doesn't give notability, it just makes it more likely per WP:ITSPOPULAR.

The article states that clips from their channel have been shown on various clip shows, but I'm not really sure that this is something that would give notability on Wikipedia given that these clip shows show many clips from various different people, sometimes even dozens per show. This is sort of a toss up as to whether or not this would show notability. If we do count this as a sign of notability then that would also mean that being on the show would be a sign of notability for anyone on the show. That's kind of a toss up and one of the reasons why I think that this would be best off getting discussed at AfD. I'm kind of mixed here and I have no problem with this being kept, but I do think that it needs to be seriously discussed.

Now assuming that this is kept, this will need a major overhaul to clean out all of the fan puffery, given that there's a ton of information here that is unsourced.

I'm also nominating the episode page for the series, List of Nikki and John Pranksters In Love episodes. Even if the main series page is kept, I really don't think that we need an episode page for this YT channel and it's fairly rare that we'll have any web series that warrants this without it being something akin to a TV drama series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you're not familiar with shows like the ones in the article, the basic gist is that these shows will find clips of various funny things on the Internet and feature them on their show. Sometimes most or all of the clip can be shown, other times it's just a couple of seconds of footage in a compilation video. There's sometimes, but not always, commentary during the video and one can be featured on the show without actually being asked to be on the show. I'm also under the impression that no one has to ask the clip uploader's permission to use the clips on air. That's what makes this a bit different because normally being on a TV show could give notability, but I'm not sure that the nature of these shows would really give notability in this scenario. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 06:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete List of Nikki and John Pranksters In Love episodes: "John bets Nikki that she can't drink a whole bottle of hotsauce and Nikki loves a challenge" is a prime example of WP:FANCRUFT. As for the main article? I'm on the fence. The Wired article is a reliable source, just about. It does need a major slice and dice to remove the excessive quantity of trivia and fancruft. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pretty much per nom, which is pretty much per failing the GNG. Also, I can drink a bottle of hot sauce; it does not hurt me. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 16 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orinda Aquatics[edit]

Orinda Aquatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am somewhat dubious of the notability of this organization. While it has produced some notable swimmers, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It is a local non-profit organization that admittedly seems to do a good job at training swimmers. But that does not in itself translate to notability. Safiel (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 06:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 06:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 06:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not even an organisation - it is only name of a swim programme run by a local college in the village of Orinda in California. kashmiri TALK 14:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whether or not considering the versions where Velella tagged it as A7 because of the then-current content, there's simply nothing to suggest even a marginally better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially promotionalism for the program . DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 21 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dar ul Ehsan[edit]

Dar ul Ehsan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. by a couple of light years FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, most search results are false positives. sst✈(discuss) 05:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's certainly been enough time for a better article and simply none of this currently suggests even a marginally notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In fact, this could have been nominated for speedy. Fails GNG, Wikipedia is not a directory, no sigcov, the whole nine yards. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a hard time finding significant coverage about this organisation on GBooks and GNews. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:53, 21 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) 02:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane_Roskams[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jane_Roskams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think Jane Roskams reaches the notability guidelines for academics. The only criteria that she might meet is criteria 1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." But here, there aren't independent reliable sources to verify that this is the case. The source for most of her lab's research findings is her lab's website which isn't independent. Achapman2009 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 05:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if we aren't accepting her citation record as proof of her impact/coverage in independent reliable sources (as we seemed to in the previous deletion discussion), I was able to pretty easily find some independent sources describing her work. I think we should be in good shape now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The previous AfD showed almost 2K citations and it handily exceeds that mark now. I think we're all growing tired of noms not understanding that citations are independent demonstration of notability and, even if there is not a single non-science or bio source, publications are still sufficient WP:RS to support basic statements regarding employment, areas of scientific interest/accomplishment, etc. This AfD is a waste of time and certain to be closed as "keep". Would be good form for nom to withdraw it. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, enough highly-cited publications for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 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 merge to Chong Chon Gang. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 08:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean cargo ship seizure in Panama[edit]

North Korean cargo ship seizure in Panama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking back on this page two years later, it doesn't seem to meet WP:NEVENT, especially WP:LASTING. I would try to merge it somewhere, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious place - 2013 Korean crisis, which this was pretty much a part of, has already been merged to 2013 in North Korea, but that article only covers activity on the Korean peninsula. ansh666 03:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing out that there was an article for the ship. Merging there makes sense. ansh666 12:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ansh666 03:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 16 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. Agreed that the draft article is superior, and will be moving it to this titleFlexity once this is deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 07:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flexity (tram)[edit]

Flexity (tram) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we have sufficient references to prove NOTABILITY? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: An improved version of this article can be found at Draft:Bombardier Flexity, which has been declined twice due to the lack of sufficient reliable sources. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace This parent article is better set out in Draft:Bombardier Flexity. I don't understand why that was rejected. Many of the related articles have overwhelming references to establish notability. Delete and replace with the draft article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with draft article per Secondarywaltz. I see no problem with sources used in the draft. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 21 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satomi Hirose[edit]

Satomi Hirose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 03:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources is not offered or to be found, in English or Japanese sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - None of this currently suggests a solidly better notable article for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did my usual search of the Japanese entertainment and tabloid press and did not find anything substantial. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 00:54, 23 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 and redirect to Michael O'Donnell. The Bushranger One ping only 07:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike O'Donnell[edit]

Mike O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as non-notable musician. Quis separabit? 03:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael O'Donnell disambig page. Does not seem to have expanded from one ref for many years. Dl2000 (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if needed and then redirect as this would be better served as a disambiguation page than this current article (nothing at all to suggest a better notable article). SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the notability claims meet WP:BIO criteria. No evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources]]. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:56, 22 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) clpo13(talk) 08:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamborasi River[edit]

Tamborasi River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this article is useless and should be deleted. There is no evidence that this is a real river. The citation is not even in English.2601:640:4000:8CD0:889E:B6B6:2491:3F9E (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh666 02:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well, there isn't really any restriction on non-English sources, and the river does seem to exist per tourist guides (which of course are not reliable sources). So the crux of this discussion should really be whether there is enough verifiable information on this to meet WP:GEOLAND and if not where this should be merged to. ansh666 02:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ansh666, is this your AfD or the anon's? The history only shows your edit. --Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IPs cannot create pages, so I completed the nomination by creating the AfD page. The statement was originally posted on the talk page of the article. And I just noticed, I didn't copy the signature correctly. Fixed. ansh666 03:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a geographical feature, seems to be a popular international tourist destination as is repeatedly referred to as the "shortest river in the world." There's sometimes a misconception that "tourist guides" are not reliable sources. Per WP:RS, there is nothing to restrict travel guides as reliable sources as long as there is editorial control over its content. Besides the coverage in the article, it wasn't hard to find recent sources on this topic too. [28][29] --Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 16 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 as mentioned below as it seems no further comments are needed for this currently clear consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silent auctions[edit]

Silent auctions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is mainly promotional. Relevant encyclopedic details about silent auctions are already covered at Auction#Secondary. Suggested outcome is a redirect to Auction, preferably specifically to the silent auction bullet. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Auction#Secondary (I don't think there's a way to have it go directly to the bullet point). Silent auction (singular), which would be the proper title, already redirects to Auction. Nominator's assessment of the state of the article is spot-on; there doesn't seem to be any salvageable info (and it's pretty much unsourced, to boot). If the concept itself is deemed notable, someone can start an article at the proper title. ansh666 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect All the reasons mentioned are spot on. Dismas|(talk) 02:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect If this could be done speedily, that would be awesome. JDDJS (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect it's a real thing, it should probably have its own article, this sure as hell isn't it. Artw (talk) 06:24, 16 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salem (Florida band)[edit]

Salem (Florida band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long troubled page with no sustainable notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC and fails to pass WP:VERIFY. The band in question only claims notability not for lasting contributions to the music industry, but by the dubious and questionable notability of the band members. This page was written from the perspective of a fan and most likely contains original research (see: WP:ORIGINAL) from a personal rather than encyclopedic perspective. Longstanding issues have not been resolved on this matter, which brings into question general public interest in and necessity for the article. Abovethestorm (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 16 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 List of Irish supercentenarians. MBisanz talk 14:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Snavely[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kathleen Snavely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOPAGE, WP:PERMASTUB. Despite seven sources, nothing at all of any interest in the article: born, emigrated, lived, died, survived-by. Merge to list. EEng (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  10:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  10:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  10:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is notable enough to be on List of Irish supercentenarians as are many different nationalities on their own country articles. Previous nomination keep arguments justifies it for me. ww2censor (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being on a list doesn't mean you're notable. The list is the only place the subject belongs -- that's what WP:NOPAGE means. EEng (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. David in DC (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of notability is clear. The reliable and verifiable sources to back it up are here. I'm not sure why I should give a crap about what the nominator does not find interesting, even with the words "at all" italicized; under the "nothing at all of any interest in the article" standard, we'd delete almost all of our five million articles. Nor can I see what changed from the rather clear consensus reached at the previous AfD for this article, a mere four weeks ago. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the earlier AfD. That there's nothing at all of interest (to the proverbial general reader) is, of course, offered as my opinion, but saying you don't give a crap is hardly a reasoned dissent from that opinion. To help you, here's the entirety of the article after removing repetition and the minutiae of "validation":
Kathleen Rollins Snavely (16 February 1902 – 6 July 2015) was the world's oldest ever Irish-born person, born in Garraun, near Feakle, County Clare as one of Patrick and Ellen Hayes' four children. She emigrated to the United States in 1921. She died in a nursing home in Syracuse on 6 July 2015, aged 113 years and 140 days. She had no children.
Can you tell us what, of this goldmine, is of any interest whatsoever? EEng (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, can you point me to your "any interest whatsoever" policy? Please remember that WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to an appropriate list. More than half of the text of the article is irrelevant to the subject. It's the customary, obsessive listing of who preceded the subject in the mythical contest to die slower than others, and who the subject dislodged as the new "champion" in one subcategory or another of the human longevity Olympics. The rest is wholly mundane details about who she was born to and when, who her siblings were and where/when she died. WP:GNG, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOPAGE. This one is the archetype for all of these stubalicious hobbyist/fancruft "articles" - chock full of statistics in a fictional competition and devoid of any facts that belong in an enctclopedia. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor a web-hosting service for the Gerontology Research Group human longevity hobbyists. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's an enctclopedia? Sounds like vaguely gastrointestinal. EEng (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Typos get ridiculed. Brilliant neologism in the very same sentence: crickets. I don't get no respect. David in DC (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article was nominated for deletion just about a month ago. General consensus then was to keep the article. I can't really see what could have changed since then. 930310 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Since then there's been a distinct rise in the quality of participation in AfDs on longevity subjects, with regard to the understanding of applicable policy and guidelines, and a drop in SPA infestation levels. EEng (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like some POV-Pushers have been more actively caballing and canvassing to scare off neutral, third-party input. This particular comment by you, EEng, reflects a long-standing pattern of edit-warring and battle-grounding on this subject. 930310 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does my memory deceive me, or didn't you get laughed off ANI just a few days ago for making that very same claim? [30]. Anyway, please focus on the content issues and omit the accusations of bad faith, which don't help your cause. EEng (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oldest person born in Ireland but living in the USA at some point in time. She did not manage to procreate so maybe no kids helped reduce her stress? I did not even find out tips to live longer in this one, so nothing worth having an article about. Legacypac (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Agree entirely with Alansohn. Passes WP:GNG. Sorry, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good enough justification for nominating an article for deletion, as it has been on a number of other occasions. It's only been a few weeks since the last AfD for goodness sake, what's new? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep, but I would not object to a redirect. Subject satisfies the literal requirements of the general notability guidelines with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. That said, there is absolutely no reason why most of these persons cannot be noted as a one- or two-sentence entry in a "List of oldest persons in X" article, or "List of Xish supercentenarians" article, even if they are marginally notable. That would probably be best addressed in the form of a Wikipedia-wide RfC for the sake of efficiency and consistency. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you'll see in the nomination, merging to a list was my original suggestion. EEng (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Backed out previous close, and relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 8 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians. All of the information belongs in a table or a list. The absence of commentary on the subject means that the subject should not have a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely (October 2015) and other users. I think "the longest-lived person from the island of Ireland" is important record.--Inception2010 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The oldest ever person from a country is notable. I don't buy the NOPAGE stuff that's being thrown around in these recent AfDs (and has rarely been used before); seems like a deletionists' charter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unwillingness or infrequency of following policy are not impressive either. There is nothing to learn in an article that is not on the list. See also WP:NTEMP which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Legacypac (talk)
But hang on - you want to delete the lists as well! [31] [32] [33] And longevity is not "one event". -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The oldest ever person from a country is notable indeed. sources are good.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Irish supercentenarians, per WP:BLP1E. While there are lots of sources, they are all about her becoming the oldest Irish person so she is only notable for that one event. Vanamonde93 sums this article up perfectly. Take out the longevity trivia about who she surpassed and you're left with nothing more than what's on the table at the Irish article. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She's not notable for BECOMING the oldest Irish person, she's notable for BEING the oldest Irish person. WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply here, and needs to stop being used in longevity-related AfDs. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She is not the oldest Irish person. She is dead. That is the only reason BLP1E doesn't apply. BIO1E does apply. However, that is just a presumptive indicator. The real problem is that there are no secondary sources, there is nothing to say about the subject except in primary sourced cross-reference to others, all of which belong in the one table/list. If a biography were warranted, then you would be able to added sources material that discuss the subject in some depth. Unfortunately, no known sources give us any more that basic data, primary source material on which an article can not be built. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being at one time the oldest Irish person is notable. And notability is not temporary and does not go away simply because she has died since. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's where Wikipedia-notability differs from real world notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the simple basis that living a long time is insufficient grounds for WP:N. It is merely tabloid news. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 23 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 keep. North America1000 13:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kellogg Interchange[edit]

Kellogg Interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable interchange. Was prodded (by me) with the following rationale: Another insignificant interchange. One of tens of thousands around the world. Well structured and written, but not notable. Searches did not turn up enough to show notability (about this interchange - there is one in another state which received some press). Was de-prodded with the following rationale: "unlike Germany, most American interchanges lack names, so the relative few that do have something special going on". Unlike other interchanges with some degree of notability, like the Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange, or the MacArthur Maze, the fact that this interchange has a name doesn't seem to convert into notability. Onel5969 TT me 00:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This massive interchange [34] is described as an "freeway as functional sculpture" in the University of California Press book L.A. Freeway, an Appreciative Essay [35][36], and the details of its construction are described in the Geologic guide to the San Bernardino Mountains [37] and in this newspaper article [38]. Sufficient sources to meet GNG as customarily applied to major US interchanges. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—as I noted when de-PROD-ing this, American interchanges customarily lack formal names. (The Pennsylvania Turnpike is the notable exception, because the PTC names each interchange like Germany does with their autobahns.) Because the vast majority of interchanges lack names in the US. those that do are special. As Arxiloxos notes right above, there are several sources online to establish notability. I suspect there are more sources offline to establish the requisite notability for an article. Imzadi 1979 → 10:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Kellogg Interchange, Los Angeles as a search for sources brings up a similarly named junction in Wichita, Kansas that has also been in the news. There are few online sources (mostly traffic reports eg: this) and the current page is about as exciting as reading the small print on a back of a pack of Kellogg's Corn Flakes, but I am happy to believe a reasonable article could be spun out of this as experience has told me the real "meat" of this sort of article is buried in civil engineering and government transcripts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_16&oldid=1142626459"