Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 December	25 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commander One[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Marslo2015 (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be spam. Citobun (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has references to Lifehacker, Softpedia, Apple World Today, about.com. TechRepublic, and Macworld. It is notable. CarnivorousBunny^talk 22:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I already added 4 resources last week (Macworld, TechRepublic, about.com, Envato). I will be glad to improve the article, please let me know what should I do for it.DashaG11 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are to high quality, reputable sites and give good coverage. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well-sourced as per comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I nearly almost closed this as such but I'll let anyone else comment as this certainly seems like enough for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, lots of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. @Citobun: How is this just spam? I don't much like the Features list, but apart from that it seems encyclopedic and well-sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart of a lot of maybe reliable sources, this kind of features list is not acceptable in encyclopedic form of wikipedia article and it is suggestion that it's commercial article Marslo2015 (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Orioles[edit]

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

I'm not entirely convinced that this was a real noble family; a Google search gets me mostly false positives about Baltimore baseball fans. Is there an Italian name I should be searching? Half the sources are not actually anything I could verify. The user who created this has been blocked for being unwilling/unable to communicate. PROD removed by an IP with no reason given. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. BTW I am sure that this IP is same person as blocked user "Alec".--Yopie (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not hoax. Note the Italian article was created in 2011 by an active user - obviously "House of Orioles" is not going to be an effective search term.[1] [2] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does not seem to be a hoax.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a hoax and multiple reliable sources supporting notability are used in the article. Cavarrone 07:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watusi (band)[edit]

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

Local band. Searches (when narrowed by including "band" and "Dallas") fail to find anything but calendar listings and PR. Article has existed for 10 years, but has never had a single independent reference. | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a few two local sources: [3] from the Dallas Observer and [4] from the Rockwall County Herald-Banner. I think this article from The Guardian could also be a reference to the band. I don't think this is enough to establish notability, as the coverage is a bit too slim. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a marginal local band and as, a native, I've never even encountered anything about this group (not a reggae fan though) so that certainly suggests the length of wide-known attention especially since this article started exactly like this since January 2005. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above, there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to establish notability. ツStacey (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computational Mechanics[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As indicated, does not seem to meet notability guidelines. The article seems to have been created by someone associated with the publication. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randykitty's cogent analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under CSD G4 -- see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksej Pechkurov. This article has been repeatedly recreated under different names -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777/Archive for more. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksej Gennadevich Pechkurov[edit]

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

Not a notable person. No Google results. Speedy deletion removed by IP that has no edits outside this article, and could very well be the creator. JDDJS (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as quickly as possible as an egregious misuse of Wikipedia to create a vanity page. Good call, @JDDJS Quis separabit? 21:23, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Smith Bowman[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree. Although I like that she is a Republican she does not meet threshold of political notability for a standalone page. Just too soon. Quis separabit? 20:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politicians of this level do not gain notability from the office alone and there is not enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is an elected county clerk. (U.S.) county officials are not usually kept (per WP:POLOUTCOMES) and if so, would need to meet WP:GNG. The sourcing of this article (in its present state) include one reference to election results and the subject's campaign website. --Enos733 (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC) minor edited --Enos733 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Katz[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable sportsperson. Quis separabit? 20:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets Notability (sports) for association football having played in the fully professional Swiss Super League with FC Lausanne-Sport. SpeechFreedom (talk) SpeechFreedom (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SpeechFreedom passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played in the Swiss Super League a Fully Professional league for Lausanne-Sport per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia sirry[edit]

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

No sources, fails WP:ARTIST NottNott talk|contrib 19:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. This wasn't a well thought-out AfD which I apologise for. Mistakes happen.

NottNott talk|contrib 14:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a credible artist, she won many many awards, toke the first place at an international competition and well know in her country. she put the necessary references and her most distinguished exhibitions. it would be a shame to delete her page. ashash345 22:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, the article is sourced: there are 5 numbered references and 3 external links. Second, the artist's many exhibitions are all in effect sources also. Third, the artist's own website has a page which lists media reception of her work; she is covered in distinguished newspapers including the oldest Egyptian national daily, Al Ahram (for example listing some awards and distinctions), Al Wafd, Akbar Alyoum, and Al Bawabh News. Fourth, [https://www.google.co.uk/#q=++-facebook+-youtube+%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9+%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%8A%E2%80%8E+++++ a google search returns over half a million hits including many news items. One can't help reflecting that a male American or European artist with this degree of coverage would hardly be in danger of deletion at AfD. An Arabic speaker could of course give us a fuller picture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of awards; referenced. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Nadia Sirry is an award winning artist. She took many awards inside and outside Egypt and is referenced by governmental sources, local and international newspapers. Please reconsider deleting this article - üser:noraasdf1234 >t 16:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvana Türkay[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable actress, reference list consists of a single link to IMDB (fails independence). Article requires multiple independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth in order to be retained. KDS4444^Talk 19:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quite obviously not a committed frequent actress with only a few works here and there, certainly not much for an encyclopedia article yet at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The key here is the underlying notability of the films she has appeared in. Currently, the films lack notability, therefore, no matter what role she had in them, so WP:NACTOR would not apply. If they were notable, then it might come into play, as she appears to have had several substantial roles. Searches did not help her meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am withdrawing my nomination. J04n(talk page) 13:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tlhalosang Molapisi[edit]

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

Do not believe that his accomplishments meet the criteria for NTRACK and unable to find any coverage that would meet GNG or WP:ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 19:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per NTRACK. He competed at the 2005 World Championships in Athletics. I have added this to the article. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Wind (album)[edit]

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

Album which does not pass WP:NALBUMS, no easy google hits, not listed at Czech IFPI (record charts). Artist also listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Vondráček ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 20:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also mentioned at his AfD page, simply nothing to suggest an otherwise better acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I explained my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Vondráček. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HGP Architects[edit]

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

I've found a bunch of mentions regarding the design or future design of buildings by this company, but nothing in depth about them that would indicate that they are notable. Sam Walton (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete ordinary bunch. Notability not demonstrated. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Celeste[edit]

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

No obvious WP:BIO criteria for notability. In terms of general coverage, there is one Daily Mail article about her losing a bunch of weight as a grandmother and winning a beauty contest in New Jersey for married women. All other references are passing mentions. Like all of the articles created by this one's author, smells strongly of undisclosed paid-editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are simply no better signs of even a minimally better notable and improvable article here, nothing at all to suggest keeping. Notifying tagger KDS4444. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So far none of the winners of the Mrs. America contest have been identified as notable, and the references included here do not seem to single this particular winner out above the others. If not paid editing, then certainly undisclosed WP:COI editing. KDS4444^Talk 06:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article's creator, User:Alwayssmileguys, has been indefinitely blocked for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability standard based on what's in the article and what Google digs up. Alansohn (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InfiniteQuest[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources about this website, therefore not notable. Sam Walton (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of notability. Tagged since 2011. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligroup[edit]

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

I've found mentions, press releases, and light coverage of the acquisition, but nothing that would show this company is notable. Sam Walton (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete advert with no claim for notability besides usual "leading provider" or unclear services. Probably an IT sweat shop. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and fails WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tea Party protests, 2010[edit]

(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)

This is clearly still a WP:LINKFARM. I could see that the article could possibly be re-written in prose to make notable encyclopedic content but since the last AfD (5 years ago) nothing has happened. As such, I believe this list and List of Tea Party protests, 2009 should be deleted. Worm^TT(talk) 16:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As written, these articles don't meet the project's standards. The notable protests are already covered at the main article, Tea Party protests. If several of the protests were to become the subject of stand-alone articles though, I could see a list/disambiguation page being useful, but only for the events that have articles, not for all of these external links. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, this article would seemingly be orphaned if it weren't for :Template:Tea Party movement. Delete per WP:LINKFARM. Cocoaguy ここがいい 17:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My understanding of a list on WP is that its purpose is to direct readers to WP articles, not just list facts or events. All of the information here could be put into Tea Party protests, if it's not there already.Borock (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We could use more comprehensive information about the Tea Party, but these two linkfarm articles aren't providing any. The "Tea Party protests" and "Tea Party movement" articles already convey that numerous protests were held across the U.S. in those two years, and on what dates, and what issues were protested. The only thing these two List articles add is a bunch of source links, of which easily two-thirds are now deadlinks. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vikash singh Rajput[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR ,upcoming actor a case of WP:TOOSOON Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON--—OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly even much here, nearly speedy material and nothing to suggest minimal signs of better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Hu[edit]

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

Self promotional. Many sources listed do not have in-depth introduction of the subject. The behavior of User:Haotianqi2 on Chinese Wikipedia suggests a strong conflict of interest. Mys_721tx (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as self-promotion (as noted) and not inherently notable. Quis separabit? 00:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editor. Fails WP:GNG, and as the article currently sits, it should be deleted as per WP:DEL4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Nicaragua, Vienna[edit]

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

Only source in the article is Google Maps. Embassies normally aren't notable unless they receive coverage in reliable sources, which doesn't appear to be the case for this one. It doesn't help that Austria–Nicaragua relations is a red link. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per reasons given by Narutolovehinata5 --—OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not coming up with any coverage. There might be some in Spanish or German language sources, but I wouldn't be equip to find them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete embassies are not inherently notable and this one has no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ward (children's author)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. No awards. No newspaper articles of any substance that I can find. All references seem to be reviews or from the authors website. Derek Andrews (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although the subject appears to have written a goodly number of children's books, I don't see how he meets any of the criteria under WP:AUTHOR. The article doesn't even assert any such claim to notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above users. Citobun (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Darmstadt[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another incomplete cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Dernbach[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another half stack interchange. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: This is one of a group of disruptive nominations for deletion by a small number of systemically biased editors who have a fixed agenda of wanting all articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany to be deleted, even though they have carried out no research into whether the subjects of the articles pass WP:GNG or not, and are therefore contending that they fail GNG without regard to whether that contention is true or false. For that reason, this nomination, like all disruptive editing, should be treated as vandalism, and should be withdrawn. See also my more detailed comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - - WP:NOTVAND explicitly states that "disruptive editing" (regardless of whether this is or not) is not vandalism. You may wish to strike the part of your comment that is contrary to policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - simply incorrect. And further evidence that Bahnfrend is lacking in AGF. I've nominated interchange articles from several countries, not simply Germany. It's simply that Germany had a plethora of non-notable interchanges which had articles, which the other countries did not. Their use of the term disruptive is a clear indication they don't have a clear grasp of the concept. If I wanted all interchanges in Germany gone, why did I not nominate all the others I've passed over? Hmmm. An apology seems warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Completely agree. This problem of systematically biased editors running amok all over Wikipedia casting their own unilateral law has to stop immediately. This is a mockery of the very foundations that Wikipedia was built on. The Dreieck Dernbach is a historic autobahn that dates back the early sixties and is therefore eminently notable. I strongly recommend that we strike this as a vandalism and delete the page immediately without further delay.Sonarclawz (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:NOTVAND, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:AGF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a named interchange is in many - most - nations, an indication that an interchange is unique and may well be notable. On Autobahns, there is no such inference, as all Autobahn interchanges are named. There is no evidence that this passes WP:GNG and no evidence that there is any disruption here, only an attempt to clear-cut an unfortunatly large group of articles on subjects that do not pass the GNG and should not have individual articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Dortmund/Unna[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was the well-referenced site of the famous.... Oops, no. Not referenced. Does not have available refs or any pertinent notability. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:46, 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. Noting that the article was completely unreferenced even at the end of the AfD, making deletion mandatory per WP:V. Sandstein 09:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Dortmund-Nordwest[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 18:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was the well-referenced site of the famous.... Oops, no. Not referenced. At all. Or notable. At all. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Comment As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, DGG? I would not support keeping an article about an English, American or Japanese cloverleaf unless it was notable. Take a look at the vastly better quality of sourcing at MacArthur Maze, for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We;'ve always been extremely flexible on geographical features, certainly for natural features, but also for manmade components of important infrastructure. In practice, I don't think we really ever applied the GNG in this area.

Several editors are stepping forward to say that we do not need or want articles about every single cloverleaf or similar generic highway interchange in the world, DGG. These are routine parts of highway infrastructure that can be described briefly in the corresponding highway articles, as opposed to devoting freestanding articles to them. The average cloverleaf is far less notable than the surrounding elementary schools, middle schools, strip malls and small tech businesses where people actually spend their "quality" time, and we routinely delete those articles continuously. I never, ever thought that Wikipedia would incorporate a directory of individual articles about all the world's cloverleafs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would never have thought so either, but since we deem to do it in the US, we should do it everywhere. There are many fields where I consider WP coverage way to expansive, and the interpretation of WP:GNG much to lax. I'm dismayed by our coverage of athletes in minor sports, or in major sports from countries where they are minor. I'm dismay ed at our coverage of insignificant musical or film performers I'm horrified by our coverage of internet start-ups. [etc. etc.]. .I personally have not the wlightest interest in these articles, but I do have interest in articles in other fields where some people think them unimportant_ Everyone will have their own list here, and it will not be the each for each of us. The only appropriate way of handling this is live and let live.

But DGG, your underlying assumption about "deeming to do it" is false. I live in California, by far the most populous state in the US, and drive extensively around the northern part of the state all the time. We have thousands of cloverleaf and similar interchanges in our freeway system but only 12 articles in the category "Road interchanges in California", and one of those is at AfD right now. There is no widespread push to create articles about run-of-the-mill highway interchanges in the US. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, the reason "we deem to do it in the US", and the reason "we would keep them if they were British", is because, with the exception of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, interchanges in the US are not normally named. Therefore, when one is named, it's a good sign that it's likely to be notable - and that is generally borne out. These, however, are interchanges in Germany, where each and every interchange is named, and therefore the presence of a name does not mean it is necessarily notable. Contrary to popular belief not everything that varies from nation to nation is WP:BIAS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cloverleaf interchanges are not automatically notable, not in the US or in UK, nor outside. Except a few passing mentions, I can't find nothing substantial about this one. Cavarrone 10:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I recognize the consensus appears other than I thought it was . DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The posts in support of this nomination are almost unbelievable. You only have to look at the map in the article to see that THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT A CLOVERLEAF INTERSECTION!!!! Which is yet further proof that the proponents of deletion of this and other Autobahn interchange articles are simply disruptively editing. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, your civility is a beacon in a wilderness of negativity. Btw, you might want to take your own advice and look at the article, whose first line is "The Kreuz Dortmund-Nordwest (German: Autobankreuz Dortmund-Nordwest) is a Cloverleaf interchange in the German state North Rhine-Westfalia." (emphasis added to help those who seem to have trouble). So either the map is incorrect, or the lead sentence is. Typical quality of these types of non-notable articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It's an obvious translation error by an editor who is clearly not very skilled at translation, in an article that is tagged as a "rough translation". The original German Wikipedia article includes a correct description of the intersection. Any lingering doubt that might exist is easily cured by the simple expedient of looking at Google Maps. As the tag at the top of the article says, the appropriate response is to "enhance the translation". Bahnfrend (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's true that this is not a cloverleaf, it's a trumpet interchange. Which is, however, also nothing special. And it's still a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL interchange on an Autobahn, that being named does not infer any notability because all Autobahn interchanges are named. In the absence of evidence that it passes WP:GNG this can only be a delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Dortmund/Witten[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another half cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 18:59, 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. Sandstein 09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Dortmund-West[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 18:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:35, 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. Sandstein 09:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Duisburg-Nord[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another turbine interchange. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 19:00, 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. J04n(talk page) 17:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Vondráček[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, WP:TOOSOON, only ref is artist's website. Article is a translation of a recently created article from the Czech wiki.

Also related is non-notable album Lost in the Wind (album). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Album article listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost in the Wind (album)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not yet risen to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Loriendrew, are you also listing Lost in the Wind (album) for deletion? If so, please tag it as such. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we could WP:A9 it after this decision, but I can tag it now.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this guy passes the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC at this point. — sparklism ^hey! 19:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the current article suggests even minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable artist, and moreover, it was most likely Pavel himself who created this article, compare the email [email protected] at the artist's official website with the Wikipedia account Paveldial1 (talk · contribs) whose only contributions are to this article and to Lost in the Wind (album). Delete both, this is self promotion or misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, in my opinion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Pine[edit]

(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. Her other activities would not justify a stand alone article. Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 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 Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps only if necessary but certainly redirect as there's not confidently enough for a solidly notable article as there could be. TNT at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (cheap, plausible, etc.) - 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) 01:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the ovr 1 per minute rate Ejgreen77 is voting keep it is hard to believe they are evaluating the articles - and they Always vote keep on every pageant winner. This is a classic case of WP:NTEMP where someone notable for only one event should not get an article. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 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]

Ignoring all Wikipedia guidelines in AfD is bad faith. Suggesting you evaluated all these article and then went back and voted using the same words is hard to believe. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that my redirect !votes were just as rapid and just as copy-pasted but didn't draw commentary... -The Bushranger _{One ping only}

But you vote keep, delete, redirect depending on the article so you evidently evaluate them. If you are not arguing with the presented rational, there is less burden to make your point. Legacypac (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability is backed up by the range of sources needed to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being Miss Oregon alone is not enough to pass notability. The sources do not pass GNG, and her roles on a local broadcast station and performing are not enough to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator states notability is not at issue, then argues about notability. Notability is at issue, and this one meets it. Keep. Jacona (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, notability is questionable, but following NOPAGE assumes notability. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject doesn't have independent notability beyond "winner of Miss Oregon", and nothing suggests that she will see more than her 15 minutes of fame. Lithorien (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Notability doesn't rise to having her own page.Blue Riband► 14:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danijela Krstić[edit]

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

Formula artricle, seen one, seen them all. 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. The rest of the article is trivia like the names of her family members - although her father has an article because he was accused of war crimes! Her job as a dental hygienist does not suggest any future career that would mean she sees anything more then her 15 minutes of fame WP:15MOF. Legacypac (talk) 05:42, 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 once crossed does not require a steady stream of new notable accomplishments. - Dravecky (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 19:42, 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 People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any lasting notability here; no national coverage. State-wide pageant winners are not notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (cheap, plausible, etc.) as well as my commentary on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Fleck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With keep votes of greater then 1 per minute is Ejgreen77 even reading these articles or doing any evaluation of the sources? Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 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]

Sure, you saved up all your votes to make them at once. NO answer provided to any policy based argument like [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." No answer reliable sources with in depth coverage provided. Just a IHEART pageants and can copy paste responses across multiple AfDs at a rate greater then per minute. 04:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep The number, scope and duration of the reliable and verifiable sources provided meet and exceed the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not appear to have the potential for notability beyond her 15 minutes of fame. Lithorien (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per explanation by Мандичка. --Mondiad (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO. Not known for anything other than competition in beauty pageants. State pageant title holders don't meet WP:PAGEDECIDE on that alone. Blue Riband► 14:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Weekley[edit]

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

The subject of the BLP does not appear to meet GNG or ANYBIO. Unable to find any references in reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 13:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, with this clearly even being close to speedy and PROD material, not even enough to suggest minimally better here. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zo National Region Development Party[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no extensive coverage by reliable sources. None of its candidates hold office. I've tagged this for notability several times as an IP, and presumably COI accounts remove the templates. Article is increasingly being used as a promotional page. See also Let Suan Khai and Kham En Thang. JNW (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks barely sufficient to justify having a page. Curro2 (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How so? JNW (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was not one of the 91 parties listed for the 2015 elections. Was not a party listed in the 2010 elections. They are one of 11 or 13 (depending on source) "Chin" (Chin State) parties, but only three have fielded candidates. Most sources are rehash of the Wikipedia page or social media. What "reliable" sources there are, only just mention them, nothing in detail. Note: this page and pages of party officials have been created/recreated by sockpuppet. Bgwhite (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources used in the article are questionable at best. Several are Facebook posts, one is a search for Myanmar in Reuters (?), and the others contain trivial mentions or none at all. While it's kind of been made to look like a solid page, if you look closer, it's very obviously non-notable, and per nom, seems to be a promotional vehicle. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Removed a number of references that do not support to adjacent text AT ALL (do not mention this party). What is left is non-notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Virding[edit]

(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. The rest of the article is trivia like the names of her family members and that she has attended (as an observer) a bunch of pageants. Legacypac (talk) 05:39, 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 inclusion of standard biographical information in a biography is standard, not "trivia". - Dravecky (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, creator and only significant editor of the article. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. 64.114.128.123 (talk) 03:12, 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 06:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 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]
Redirect to Miss Oregon#Winners as suggested by the nom and for the usual reasons (cheap, plausible, etc.) as well as my commentary on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Fleck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Dravecky. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kari Virding is not covered in the context of "a single event", she is covered in the context of holding a position that lasts a year. Miss Oregon is a title that exists for a year, not just the day of the pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then could you provide sources that document her reign in any significant or indepth way, other then handing the crown off a year later? Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 23 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) 12:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lithorien (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO. State pageant title holders don't meet WP:PAGEDECIDE on that alone. Blue Riband► 14:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dannarzai[edit]

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

Does not appear to be legitimate. Nothing in Google but mirrors of this page. Curro2 (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete unfortunately, nonverifiable. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 07:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to say. No Varification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Guide (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jangail[edit]

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

No indication of significance Alvin the Almighty (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Curro2 (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.125 (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, nonverifiable. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shankman[edit]

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

Possibly notable as author, but only reviews I can find are PW and Booklist, nothing in newspapers that I can access. As for his entrepreneur cred, there is this 1998 article when he was "pre-success". But I don't find anything else other than the brief quotes. I think this fellow is marginal in terms of notability. LaMona (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jgreene1333 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)I'd disagree. Shankman is very notable, just seems to have an underwritten Wikipedia entry, which I've been updating. I've added numerous keynotes, CNN appearances, and more information on the companies he's founded, and sold.[reply]

Thanks, Jgreene1333, I'll be interested to see what you come up with. As full disclosure, however, I should note that you are the creator and primary editor on this article. LaMona (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jgreene1333 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Sure - I've added 13 media appearances on CNN and Fox, as well as 9 significant keynoting events over the last year, and can easily double or triple that as I keep going, so I'd think he'd definitely qualify as notable :) (and also have a very under built out page, previously).[reply]

Thanks, User:Jgreene1333, however those do not fit into the WP guidelines for notability. Notability is based on what other people (independent third-parties) have said about the subject, and none of those address that. LaMona (talk) 16:21, 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 07:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as none of the suggests even minimally better general notability but draft and userfy if needed. Jgreene1333, I would also suggest using the "show "preview" as this will alleviate the need of clicking "edit" again so many times and also alleviate servers and history logs exhaustion. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister Sorry for unncessary edits - there are number of better general notability links that I'll put up there once I have them drafted :)

Significantly updated with many more resources and profiles. Jgreene1333 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So now we've been ref-bombed. I removed the use of his own books as references -- his writings should not be referenced, but you can add ISBNs which then become links to sources for the books. You have added references to his speaking engagements, but those are not about him. The one potentially notable thing, the NASA advisory, is not validated in the ref you provide. Smack media is an promotion agency, thus not an independent source. Unfortunately what you've done is increase the promotional aspect of this article, which is the opposite of what is needed. Also, there is still the matter of the photograph, which you uploaded to Commons as "own work" - although it appears to be a professional photograph. LaMona (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona - I'm unclear if the issue with NASA advisory panel was that the title needed to cited exactly, which I've updated, but he is listed on the PDF that is the reference, under the committee. I've removed the picture until I can post additional documentation about it. There are a number of profiles listed about him, including Crain's New York, and others. I can take down Smack Media, and find an additional source for that story.Jgreene1333 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "issue" with the NASA advisory panel is that the article says "He was appointed to this position by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden." The reference is just a list of members of the panel -- nothing else. So the only thing that is verifiable is that he was a member of that panel on that date. You can request permission of a copyright holder to attach a free license to a work, such as a photograph. See template. Profiles do not attest to notability -- they are not independent of the subject (subject often provides the information). LaMona (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona - I've replaced the Smack Media reference with an independent reference. All of the books have been re'cited with ISBN numbers. I've added (current citation 36) another NASA release speaking about the establishment of the committee. Also have added several references from the NY Times, and removed several tangential. Working on the photo. Jgreene1333 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to explain to you that more ref-bombing isn't helping your case. The more you add insignificant and non-reliable sources, the worse you subject looks. The "profiles" are 1) interviews 2) blog posts or personal website. Ref #40 is about someone else and is just a name-check for Shankman. Being know for tweet-gags isn't one of our notability criteria. Getting into a pissing contest with a blogger also isn't a route to notability. Being mentioned in articles is not the same as being "featured." You really need to reduce this down to what makes him notable. Adding more non-reliable sources is not working. LaMona (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient coverage in independent sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused - there's plenty of coverage in independent sources, the issue seems to be with the formatting, not with the existence of coverage of Shankman - Jgreene1333 (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not all coverage is equal. Mentions are not "coverage". Articles about other people and other things that have his name in them in one place is not "coverage." Not all sources attest to notability. I feel like I've said this many times to you, and don't know what it will take to get the point across. Marketing materials are neither independent nor reliable. A source saying that he spoke at a conference or meeting does not confer notability. I think it is very important for you to understand the concept of notability used by WP because you do create and edit other articles, not just this one, and you are spending time adding non-reliable sources to an article, which is a waste of both your time and the time of anyone who is reviewing the article. This is not a good thing for Wikipedia and its volunteers. LaMona (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona I hear you and am working on improving it. I appreciate your patience, and should have it cleaned up in the way you suggest within the next day. Jgreene1333 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, I'm continuing to update the page with sources to highlight notability, and removing the types that have been flagged. Thanks. Jgreene1333 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally quite patient, but I'm beginning to lose it. You have added links but removed none, and the links you have added do not support notability. I may give this a bit of time before I just do the edits myself, but basically all of the links to his TV appearances are wp:primary and do not belong in the article. (Basically, #s15-25) Mentions and short quotes (e.g. #13, 14, 4, 6, 28) do not support notability -- delete those. One-off stunts (25, 26, 27) do not support notability. Delete those as well. When you have done this, you should have maybe a half a dozen references, but all of them may be good. At that point, it will be worth asking others to review the article. And, like I say, I can give you only a short amount of time on this because I've already given this about two weeks of my time, and I'm about at the "cut to the chase" point. LaMona (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Barrera[edit]

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

Autobiography. Refs (note: they do exist but are inline external links so there is no references section) are predominantly unreliable (facebook, blogs, etc) and notability is not demonstrated. However the real problem with the article is that it is entirely written from a non-neutral point of view: not only is it promotional throughout it appears this individual has a "colourful" past (see "Costa Mesa bar owner liable in $18 million Ponzi scheme") and the article is an attempt to counter that, going so far as to say "Barrera is working to ... expose the perpetrator(s) that have extorted and falsely named him and continue his work as a cultural ambassador" etc. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Notability concerns aside, there is nothing salvageable here - delete. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. What references (i.e. inline links) there are, are largely links to products that he is promoting. I could not find any that resembled a good reference.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG promotional puff piece without a single reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks verifiable sources as required for WP:BLP and also fails notability at first glance. Cocoaguy ここがいい 17:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant promotion and PoV. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promoting puffery / excuses - No WP:RSs - Arjayay (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Clearly not an acceptable article yet, not even minimally. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. To delete, at least. Whether to convert to a list article, as proposed, might need further discussion. Sandstein 10:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial pole[edit]

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

See talk page for RfC. Majority agree this is WP:OR. If no one wants to scale it back to a short list of links to related to the concept, it seems the closest thing we have to consensus is to just delete the thing.

As there is no consensus about what this should even include as a list, and even that would be OR, deletion seems the best option. This doesn't belong on the 'pedia. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - propose turning page into a redirect to Festivus. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed in the Disambiguations delsort as turning this into a disambiguation page is one of the options raised at that Talk page Rfc, mentioned by the nominator. So if the Disambiguations people thing that's a great or terrible idea, or somewhere in between, here's a chance to weigh in. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no source that links these different practices. Maybe a disambiguation page, which would be better than redirect to Festivus. There are many ceremonial poles and Festivus is not widely known outside the U.S. and outside of Seinfeld fans.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig or redirect, a redirect to Festivus doesn't make sense, since this is hardly the only generic "ceremonial pole" out there. A Template:R to section to Ceremonial South Pole [5] would make more sense as a proper name, if a redirect is preferred.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I for one thought the "festivus" redirect idea was just a joke? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only partially joking. ;) It's been a strange history with this article. Turning it into a disambig would work, too. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not all ceremonial poles are Festivus or the South Pole ple, and this article documents them. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 13:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that combining these all in one article is WP:OR? Since the summer there has been a call for *any* WP:RS sources that discuss commonalities among all (or any) of the objects included here, and zero have been forthcoming. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:29, 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 07:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's WP:OR. The group of "ceremonial poles" can be analytically inferred from the fact that these are poles that are used in ceremonies, and differentiated practices are well documented in RS. It isn't more OR than it is to list Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Sikh temples in the article Temple. Or to list wine, beer, milk and soda in the article Drink. It would be absolutely mindless to go hunt for sources that say that Hindu and Jewish temples are instances of the same concept of 'temple'. One will find comparisons here and there ('Hindu temples are like Sikh temples in terms of x but not in terms of y') but one vainly looks for authors trying to prove their foundation: 'The following are instances of temples: Hindu temples, Sikh temples, Jewish temples, Mormon temples...' This is a problem with top level articles, such as this one. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what came out of the RfC. With all due respect, did you read the RfC, page history, and rest of the talk page? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that the RfC's consensus, that "the primary focus should be 1.Ceremonial use of large poles mounted in the ground", doesn't seem helpful here. Sandstein 11:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to a set index. "Ceremonial pole" can refer to a number of different things in many religious and secular activities which, other than being a pole, have basically nothing in common. Why not make this an index of the related topics? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
make into set index. Clearly there are no sources which discuss the "generic" ceremonial pole concept. (If I am mistaken, then handle it per Wikipedia:Broad-concept articles guideline). - üser:Altenmann >t 22:21, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen USA 2016[edit]

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

No sources, no date announced, and this has not been televised for many years - YouTube show only. Too soon for an article. Past event dates suggest July/August 2016 Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now Per nom, not enough information yet to be reliable. Cocoaguy ここがいい 17:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Teen USA page per above Cheetah255 (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also SALT the article otherwise it will be recreated very soon after this AFD closes....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Draft:, and salt until 5 September 2016 Unsourced, uses future tense. Miss Teen USA 2015 was dated 22 August 2015, so the un-salt time was chosen as two weeks after 22 August 2016. This particular topic may be in the news at that point even if it fails to take place, because of Trump's involvement and the upcoming November 2016 US Presidential election. Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No more Trump or NBC involvement, since they sold out, which will decrease the coverage I project since no one gets free press like him. [6] Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Obvious Keep is obvious. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Cyrus[edit]

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

This actor fails WP:NACTOR, considering that none of the roles listed are significant. Being the voice in a re-dubbed film is almost notable, but subjectively I feel that this does not meet the threshold. Being related to other entertainers does not give someone notability. Though there are a few hits on google, they are not related to anything in the article and do not cover anything substantive or "remarkable" (most of the hits name her as Miley Cyrus' sister) only noting that she wears provocative clothing. If this person gains more significant experience in the future, the article should be recreated. Again if this person does more with their life in terms of activism or culture, she would gain notability (fundraising for PETA is again dubious notability [in itself]). Cocoaguy ここがいい 07:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Role as voice actor is significant but that is the only role that is and WP:NACTOR would like to see multiple significant roles, so NACTOR does not support article but cult following might apply. I think there is enough coverage in third party sources about her to meet WP:GNG as a celebrity in her own right independent of acting. Ones in article are light but she is getting some notoriety as a celebrity personality with causes. On balance I think passes the threshold for an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright those actually good points. Cocoaguy ここがいい 17:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But your original points also were pretty good, Cocoaguy. But before weighing in with an opinion, let me ask -- Are you withdrawing this nomination? If so, why not just close it? NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovifm.com ( Radio ). Continued block evasion by serial sockpuppeteer User:Alex9777777. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 13:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lovifm music[edit]

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

Had nominated for speedy under A7, anonymous IP user removed, am now moving to AfD, see talk page for the list of previous titles under which this company has attempted to insert itself into Wikipedia. KDS4444^Talk 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC) KDS4444^Talk 08:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Lovifm Music-Article should not be deleted !!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.16.55 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike its predecessors, Lovifm.com music, Lovifm.com ( Radio ), Lovifm (Blogs), Aleksej Pechkurov ( Radio Lovifm ), Lovifm radio, and Lovifm Music (capital M on "music"). Because why? KDS4444^Talk 01:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.45.1.207 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article for Wikipedia ! Lovifm music -do not delete. Article for Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.138.189 (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
good article Lovifm music -do not delete. Article for Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natali Avdeithik (talk • contribs) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike previous articles Lovifm, this article is more complete , and it should remain in Wikipedia !!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natali Avdeithik (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Natali Avdeithik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The true art of the real site and a man ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.45.9.97 (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as KDS4444 notes above, this article has previously been created under a range of titles, by a range of user accounts --- previous creations have all been by identified sockpuppets of Alex9777777 -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777/Archive. Based on this evidence, I have listed the creator of this article at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex9777777 for investigation since I suspect this may be the same individual re-publishing this material. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added information in article, good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferMari-Gardner (talk • contribs)

Delete. Unremarkable app whose articles seems meant to promote it. No independent sources have been offered to indicate how it is notable; there also seems to be a sock working to keep this here and/or users of the app have been directed to come here. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear notable; no Google results except personal playlists and Wikipedia. Not all of the article makes much sense in any case. Speedy deletion criterion A7 (no assertion of notability) may apply. -- Bad Weather 2014 ^{My work • What's wrong?} 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G5/A7 - article about web content with no claim of significance, apparently created by a block-evading self-promoter. --McGeddon (talk) 12:13, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Shaw[edit]

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

PROD removed by TonyTheTiger, saying this should be expanded with details about his relationship with Paris Hilton, but the facts actually are that he only apparently dated Paris Hilton a few years and there's nothing else to suggest he was otherwise best known for anything else even including his relationship (to be honest, there's not even much solid in-depth coverage about the relationship as it is). As mentioned with my PROD here, my searches found exactly the expected coverage, gossip and passing mentions and the longest work he ever had was only four episodes of one TV show, it also seems he's no longer active with the entertainment area as well. It's also worth this is a particularly troubled BLP article (basically unsourced) with a few vandalisms here and there. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying the article should or should not be kept. I just felt the deletion decision deserved fuller attention because of the possibility that there may be a way to meet the WP:GNG threshold. I am sure a proper decision will be reached here with full consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has only IMDB as a source, which is pretty weak. On Google I found many doctors and lawyers but the IMDB result was pretty low down I believe. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. IMDb is not an acceptable source (especially as an only source) for a BLP. Although being "the spokesmodel" for Tommy Hilfiger should lend itself to notability, I can find no reliable source saying that claim is actually true, which leads me to believe that it is not. He certainly modelled for Hilfiger and for some other brands, but nothing that has been covered in any kind of depth in reliable sources. There's a couple of write-ups about a home he's selling (or has sold) in LA, but that's not particularly noteworthy, and as expected there are a few passing mentions of him in articles about Paris Hilton. Fails WP:GNG overall. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and above editors. Not enough in-depth coverage on search engines to show he meets notability criteria. As Ivanvector correctly pointed out, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cruz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The only thing the actor seems to have done is to have a guest appearance in two independent films, one of which doesn't have a Wikipedia article and the other one which is being considered for deletion as well. Google results too don't help and I am unable to see how the topic is notable. The actor may receive coverage in the future, but as it stands I don't see anything significant enough about the subject that would warrant the existence of this article. Ya sh ! 05:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom... fails notability and WP:SOAP (#4) most likely. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually going to just A7 these - the guy fails even basic GNG pretty solidly and none of the films are notable. From what I can see, the films were the type made by a friend during their spare time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:29, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BrainBuxa[edit]

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

The article fail GNG and Notability (web). I searched for the reliable Independent sources but i also fail to find any independent sources that show the notability of the subject rather than these ([7], [8], [9], [10]) four links which also seems self-published. G. Singh ^(talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. G. Singh ^(talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. G. Singh ^(talk) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks independent sourcing to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 05:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article lacks notability, and it appears to have problems with WP:NPOV and possibly outright WP:SPAM. The only significant editor is a user who's only edit is creating the article in question. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Also only a handful of hits in news/secondary sources; and even then, barely a mention. Aeonx (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are given less weight because they claim the existence of sources, but do not cite them; indeed, the article contains no reliable independent sources. Sandstein 09:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naghma Sahar[edit]

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

Claims no notability, fails WP:GNG. PROD was revert~~ing~~ed by citing reason that she is covered in some book written by her colleague at NDTV! Sounds very much an independent source. (rolling eyes smiley) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was one of the (two) main characters in Braking News, a non-fiction book that got very positive reviews when it was published in 2010: outlook, live mint, elevate difference, and that could be used to beef up our article. Unfortunately, I am at present very far from my copy of the book. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is written by Sunetra Choudhury, a fellow NDTV pal of hers and that kinda book can be used only to write generic information about her but not considered as independent source to establish any notability; like already said in the AfD rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For Wikipedia to feature a biography that article must either meet WP:GNG or some specialized notability criteria like the ones listed at WP:BIO. No acceptable sources are cited so this article fails GNG. No assertion is made that this person could pass any specialized criteria. In Biwom's sources, only the live mint source mentions this person by name, and then it only does so in passing while the subject of the article is something else. This person is not the subject of those articles on Braking News.

It could be that Braking News is a WP:RS which contributes to this person's notability but evidence is not presented which ties this person to be the subject of that book. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This personality has no independent notability & it fails to satisfy WP:GNG Scourgeofgod (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a stub that needs a LOT more work, but the individual is a journalist for what appears to be a major India TV network, and if so, GNG is met. If this is an example, she is doing some significant work, even if it's in Hindi and not in English. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So every employee of a "major India TV network" is by default notable per GNG? (And what a blunder; she works for NDTV; not India TV, both are different.) And what does the article really say? That she went on a "continual hunt for local cuisine"! That's notable?! That's all the book reviewer could write about her? And as said previously, her colleague writing testimonial about her is not independent source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a false argument, Dharmadhyaksha. I stated, "a major India TV network, which I presume NDTV is. And clearly, the janitors are not notable, but the on-screen television personalities most likely are. For example, a person in a comparable position with the BBC or NBC or CNN would almost certainly be notable on that basis alone, and I presume that the major TV networks of India are just as important and notable as the ones in the USA or the UK? Or are these networks unimportant, minor ones? Or are only the women non-notable?? Just curious. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 17 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} 13:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should come back with all know how and then argue keep. You are assuming NDTV is same as India TV, you are assuming on-screen television personalities are notable, you are assuming all major TV networks in India are just as important as that in USA or UK, you don't know what you are arguing is an unimportant minor network or not and you are assuming in bad faith that this AfD is because the subject is women. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not assuming they are the same network and please stop your hyperventilating and assume good faith, They appear to both be major networks. The NDTV article states "New Delhi Television is among India's top broadcasters and has offices and studios across the country. Its three national news channels NDTV 24x7 (English), NDTV India (Hindi) and NDTV Profit (Business news) form the core of the company." If this is not true, then perhaps the NDTV article shouldn't be there or that material needs to be removed ... but if it is major, then the people it hires are major - and I would suggest that over 1500 links mean it's pretty significant. By extension, people who are its major on-screen personalities meet GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With that logic WP will be full of non-sense if applied to all List of largest employers. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another false analogy; we are looking at both company size and celebrity status here. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not. You are wrongly implying that because she is seen on screen and is an employee of a large company she is notable. That's wrong! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 05:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This person hosts and has hosted shows on a major network. Also per Biwom, keep as she is mentioned in notable sources. I feel as if notability would be more apparent if she was working for a western media outlet. Cocoaguy ここがいい 08:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being the host of a non-notable show doesn't make you notable. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply none of this suggests even a minimally better notable article. NOTE: Please relist a third time if no comments come soon. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO .Now hosts of all TV shows are not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (mind game)[edit]

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

This article is a joke, a hoax, a prank. Jonty Haywood – who is quoted by several sources in the article, is the creator of LoseTheGame.com (which hosts several of the sources), and is the author of the petition mentioned in the article – was responsible for the Porthemmet Beach hoax. Among the sources for the article are social media postings, articles from student newspapers, and an email apparently sent to a school boy by the Australian prime minister. And it's illustrated by a picture of a toilet. The GA Review was obviously done as a joke. It didn't discuss any of the obvious problems with the article, including the sources. Jack Upland (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GA reviews don't address notability, but they do address verifiability. And this game does indeed seem to exist. Here's an article about it at The Next Web. The article itself is obviously not a hoax, though I suppose you may mean that The Game is a prank people play on each other. Well, OK, but that's a perfectly legitimate topic for an article on Wikipedia. Do you have a better deletion rationale? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[That article is basically a copy of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)][reply]

- Keep. Yeah, I'm going with "keep", too, and I think this could even be closed as "speedy keep" based on the current deletion rationale. The article itself is obviously not a hoax. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Eh? I don't understand how the article is "a hoax", having written most of it myself. The Game is a real thing—you can call it an internet craze or a childish school game or whatever, but it's just as real as duck, duck, goose or Charlie Bit My Finger or whatever else you might consider to be absurd, but is still notable (at least in my opinion).

Among the sources for the article are articles from the Metro, The Canadian Press and the Rutland Herald. Feel free to be bold and remove some of the more dubious sources if you like—having not looked at the article properly for about a year, I'm sure I'd be quite ashamed of what I would have considered to be suitable encyclopedic sourcing back then—but focus on the good sources, not the bad. I think it's fairly obvious that I'm !voting keep.

TheQ Editor hasn't edited for several months, but I'm sure they would tell you they took the review seriously and I think it's quite rude to say it was "obviously done as a joke". By all means, initiate a GAR, but please don't insult other users editing in good faith.

I think it's worth pointing out that although this page reads "7th nomination", the last proper nomination (excluding a bad faith pointed nomination) was back in 2006. It ended with "delete", 2006 was before most of the sources now in the article were written. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the nominator's feelings towards the subject of the article, there very clearly are enough sources to satisfy the GNG. A lot of the arguments from the 2009 snow keep still apply. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Evidence of significant coverage by various news outlets present in the article. Meets WP:WEBCRIT. Altamel (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this really the seventh Afd nomination and if so, why does only one and seven show in the above box? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The other deletion nominations were conducted when the article was under a different title, namely, "The Game (game)". Altamel (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and dammit after many years I just lost the game. Artw (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: If there were no problems with the article, it would not have faced 7 deletion nominations, so I would appreciate a more thoughtful response. My "feelings" about the article are that it is quite humorous, but it that it doesn't belong in a encyclopedia. I said this article is "a joke, a hoax, a prank". It's very hard for me to categorise this article. The information isn't verifiable in a normal sense. That isn't acceptable in Wikipedia. For example, the lead states: "the number of players is estimated by Jonty Haywood to be in the millions". Who is Jonty Haywood? He is a known prankster who has been involved in the creation of this article under the name Kernow and possibly other names. The article also says: "petitions in Britain trying to pass laws involving The Game have been created". There is a source for this: a petition to Bristol City Council with one signature – Haywood. Haywood is not a school boy: he appears to be a teacher who graduated from Cambridge. Don't tell me that petition was not a prank! Does the game exist? I don't know. If you unscramble the paradoxical rules, the object of the game is publicise the game, thus causing other people to "lose the game". Hence, this article itself is part of the game. While there might be someone out there "playing the game", as it stands, the article is largely a vehicle for promoting Haywood and his pranks. That fails the criterion of notability. It's been said that there are verifiable sources. Let's look at these in turn:

1. Daily Nebraskan: a student newspaper. Not a reliable source.

2. De Pers: based on an interview with Haywood.

3. Metro (1): a short snippet that refers to Haywood's website.

4. Rutland Herald: an article that refers to Haywood's website.

5. Canadian Press: quotes Haywood.

6. LA Loyolan: a student newspaper. Not a reliable source. Refers to Haywood's website.

7. xkcd: a comic.

8. Cory Antiel: Apparently a student essay. Apparently Antiel is a puppeteer. Hosted by Haywood's website.

9. Metro (2): quotes Haywood.

10. KC Star: refers to Haywood's website.

11. Petition: authored by Haywood – see comments above.

12. Kevin Rudd email. Hosted by Haywood's website. A non-notable prank.

13. Daily Globe: refers to Haywood's website.

14. "The Game (I lost!)": a blog on a site called arseburgers.co.uk.

15. Tolstoy: no direct connection.

16. Dostoyevsky: no direct connection.

17. Wikinews: an interview with Haywood.

18. SBMC: a comic.

19. RealLife Comics: a comic.

20. Youtube.

21. Youtube.

22. Twitter.

23. Facebook.

24. TechCrunch: report of 4chan prank. Doesn't explain what "the game" is.

25. ABC News: blog, page unavailable.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The list of references Jack Upland gives may not be the strongest collection ever put together, but together they do enough to satisfy me that the topic is sufficiently notable for a low-importance article, particularly as it is known fairly widely and over a period of many years. (Notwithstanding the article does require some clean-up). Aspirex (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is strange that none of the above responses reply to my point about Jonty Haywood. Either this is a hoax, or there are no sources that allow someone who stumbles across the article, like me, to verify that it is not a hoax. That is what verifiable sources are for. They are not simply a box to be ticked. I believe it is a hoax. People who claim that they "play the game" are like people who claim to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (I am not saying this because Bilorv is a follower of this "church".) Do they really believe the cult-like claims of the game? Do they believe that everyone is playing? Do they believe that only the British PM can end the game? If people were genuinely playing, they would not make a website about the game, because that involves thinking about the game. They would not write newspaper columns about the game. They would not write this article. They would not participate in this discussion. They would not oppose the deletion of this article. The claims about the game are not genuinely believed. We have an article about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but we say that it is a parody (despite the fact that people vigorously argue otherwise). We have an article about the Porthemmet Beach hoax, but not about the beach. If people want to write an article about their hoax and their pranks, OK. But an article which states the game is genuine is not OK. Wikipedia just lost.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about Jonty Haywood is not a challenge to notability. We have an article about the Porthemmet Beach hoax, as you quite rightly state; this is because that while it was something Haywood did for a bit of a laugh, it is notable. You could say the same here. I doubt Haywood invented The Game, but that's not the point – he's been involved in spreading The Game across the internet. It's a game. A meme, an idea, a concept. Calling it "a hoax" is like saying Chinese whispers is just a hoax. It doesn't make sense. It's an idea that most certainly exists, whatever its origins, and in both cases has been reported on widely enough for there to be a Wikipedia article about it. The British prime minister being able to end The Game, that everyone is playing but only a few know they are playing etc. – these are all jokes, non-serious rules that accompany The Game and vary from group to group, like the rules of any other game. Your analysis of the references above is flawed in that it considers mentioning Haywood to disqualify it from being a reliable source, as if this is some sort of conspiracy to deceive people into believing... well, I don't know what, really. You accuse me, journalists and everyone here of some vague conspiracy. You seem to have changed your stance from saying the article should be deleted to saying that we should write in the article that it's a hoax or "parody" (of what?) of some sort.

I play The Game, in the sense that I have a group of friends who have heard of the rules and find it funny. Avoiding loss is not really the point (as the article points out). The point is to have fun. This is the point of every game. And yes, I "believe" in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I also like Doctor Who. So what? None of these three things are "real" in any meaningful sense, but they are concepts that exist, that are talked about, represented in various media and reported on by secondary sources. You wouldn't nominate the latter two for AfD.

And as for the cheap "If there were no problems with the article, it would not have faced 7 deletion nominations" argument, it's just wrong. Encyclopedia Dramatica has been nominated for deletion 8 times; this rather offensive subject has been the subject of 22 AfDs. Both still have pages. The common theme? Childish, immature, very much internet focused, but still discussed in reliable sources and still notable. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 23:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I play The Game, in the sense that I have a group of friends who have heard of the rules and find it funny." Thank you. You have just confirmed that I am right: it is a hoax.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have anything meaningful to say, this will be my last reply here. I wrote a lot of words there and you've just cherry picked a few of them to confirm some deluded conspiracy of yours. A hoax is (according to Google) "a humorous or malicious deception". Where is the deception here? What do you feel you are tricked into believing? There is nothing written in the article that is untrue. And how does this mean the article should be deleted? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there is hardly anything in the article that is not a bogus claim or the reporting of a bogus claim. For example, "the number of players is estimated by Jonty Haywood to be in the millions". As you have confirmed, there is probably nobody playing the game. Haywood probably said that, but it is just nonsense, not an estimate. This is a hoax. The guidelines are clear: we can write an article about a hoax, but not an article that perpetuates a hoax. It doesn't matter whether the hoax originated with the article, or not.

As you say, Haywood "been involved in spreading The Game across the internet". Almost all of the sources link directly back to Haywood. He put forward the petition. He even took the picture of the toilet. This raises the issue of notability, and makes it all seem promotional, particularly as Haywood was involved in establishment of this article. It also underlines the fact that it is a hoax. It also raises the issue of verifiability. The sources echo Haywood's bogus claims uncritically (and light-heartedly). They are not independent, reliable sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG with ease. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. ^[7]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "'The Game' is a fad that will get you every time". Archived from the original on 24 July 2009.
^ "Nederland gaat nu ook verliezen". Archived from the original on 15 December 2008.
^ "Teens around the world are playing 'the game'". CTVNews.
^ "If you read this you've lost The Game - Metro News". Metro.
^ "Column: Playing 'The Game' with the other kids". Daily Globe.
^ "Mind game enlivens students across U.S." Archived from the original on 18 May 2008.
^ "Archives : Rutland Herald Online". (subscription required)

No, it doesn't. The sources are not independent reliable sources. Almost all uncritically echo Haywood. They are examples of humorous, "silly season" reporting, or blogging. Simply because a few sources play along with (or are taken in by) a hoax, does not make the story verified.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Umm why is this nominated under the 7th nom ? .... Where's the other 5 or 6 ? .... Anyway keep~~ per sources provided –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Trump[edit]

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

A cable-news TV special, airing TODAY, and propped by a single newspaper preview listing and a partisan blog posting. Not even *close* to meeting notability guidelines, even technically. Calton | Talk 04:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not seem to be notable as it promotes a TV program which will most likely air once or twice and receive marginal rating and associated buzz. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the page to a redirect. No need to delete a page that serves a purpose. I vote to close this discussion to save time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this page serves no purpose since it's not a legitimate redirect term, nor is the underlying content useful or notable. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your particular brand of agit-prop. And what part of Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. in the AFD notice gave you difficulty? --Calton | Talk 16:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the redirect does not serve a purpose? I am not looking to promote anything. I just want someone searching for information about Citizen Trump to be redirected to Donald Trump. This is very straightforward and an AfD discussion is not necessary. Since my conversion to a redirect page was undone, I'll cast my vote to redirect the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone be searching for information about a one-shot cable-news show on Wikipedia? Answer: one wouldn't and one shouldn't, your attempt to juice up the show's Internet presence (I.e., promote) notwithstanding. I repeat, it's not a legitimate redirect term. --Calton | Talk 05:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I am not trying to promote anything. This is a documentary film about a person. It is entirely appropriate to redirect a film about a person to the individual's Wikipedia article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Donald Trump or Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. MB298 (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The question Why would anyone be searching for information about a one-shot cable-news show on Wikipedia? shows an indifference to current Wikipedia searches by our readers. WP provides the answer for many questions in todays Internet presence. Merge to campaign article. Buster Seven Talk 02:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but noteworthy enough for mention in the Trump campaign article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informosphere[edit]

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

Non-notable new concept. Antigng (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unreferenced article about a non-notable neologism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in its own right. Cocoaguy ここがいい 08:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Infosphere if related. --Wcam (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palwasha Yousuf[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Just know as the sister of Alishba Yousuf and Syra Yousuf. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely nn. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Curro2 (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not remotely notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only relation connection not enough for WP:GNG! SuperHero ● Ping ● ★ 10:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bagron[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bugs Bunny's Looney Christmas Tales. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze Frame (1979 film)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) Cubbie15fan (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

Redirect. This is sourcable, but as available sources speak of it in regards to it being part of the more sourcable Bugs Bunny's Looney Christmas Tales, that is the better place where it may be spoken of. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion as WP:G5. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat's Paw (film)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) Cubbie15fan (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like this was created by a sockpuppet of TweetiePie1947 after their block, so I can speedy it as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:33, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jive64[edit]

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

Apparently briefly cracked some Israeli music chart, though none of the sources appears to be a solid WP:RS. Smells like paid editing, Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned as this was easily PROD material and should have been accepted as such, because unless considerably convincing Israeli sources are found, my own searches found nothing at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article's creator, User:Alwayssmileguys, has been indefinitely blocked for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ohnoitsjamie and clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 06:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho-biddy[edit]

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

Not a notable term or subgenre. Koala15 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you bother to check the references? There is already an entire book on the topic linked in the reference list. Just from a quick Google search, i quickly found another source that is an entire chapter in another book. And that's just from a quick glance, with only one of the four different name variations for this sub-genre. I think there's more than enough notability to be found for this sub-genre. Silver seren^C 09:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm with Silver seren. According to this article in Entertainment Weekly, Fangoria ran an article about it recently. It's not like this is super-obscure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In Koala's defense, he was probably only looking for the specific term "psycho biddy" in the sources and upon not seeing it in all of the sources, assumed that it was original research. It's a mistake (since the other terms are in the lead), but a human one. A quick Internet search shows that the term "hag horror" is used far more often than the others, so we should probably move this to that title as the common name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Otitoju[edit]

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

Only sources are dead links, does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: as per @Wikicology: below, rewrite of article and inclusion of good references. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject of the article meet WP:NPOL#2 as a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. In addition, sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I'd like to mention that it's better to do this than a call for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:38, 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.

[1] "'The Game' is a fad that will get you every time". Archived from the original on 24 July 2009.

[2] "Nederland gaat nu ook verliezen". Archived from the original on 15 December 2008.

[3] "Teens around the world are playing 'the game'". CTVNews.

[4] "If you read this you've lost The Game - Metro News". Metro.

[5] "Column: Playing 'The Game' with the other kids". Daily Globe.

[6] "Mind game enlivens students across U.S." Archived from the original on 18 May 2008.

[7] "Archives : Rutland Herald Online". (subscription required)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]