Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 January	3 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code Lyoko: Rebirth[edit]

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

This is, by its own admission, an American fan created extension of the French Code Lyoko TV franchise. If it ever makes it to TV then it could be notable but there is no indication that this will ever be more than a web based fan production on YouTube, even if it is an authorised one. So we have no proof of notability, no independent references and a clear conflict of interests problem too. I see this as a slam-dunk deletion case but the author does not agree and has not agreed in the past. Rather than go round the loop of it being deleted and recreated again, with only 2 or 3 people involved, I'd like us to have a discussion here with wider inclusion and reach a decision we can all understand, respect and stick to. (If nothing else I hope it will prove that this isn't just me being mean but even if that were to be the consensus at least it would resolve the matter once and for all.) DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems reasonable. As it stands, I can't find any real coverage of this project in reliable sources, and a quick look through the YouTube channel shows they don't have much work done, so they're unlikely to get any for a while. WP:CRYSTAL comes to mind. — Earwig ^talk 22:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Fan-created"; why isn't this A7'ed? Unless a network is snookered into picking this up somehow, fan-created projects earn automatic deletions, and this is no exception. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am at a loss as to how this page is still up. This does not meet the adequate needs to be on WP. --Lit1979 (contribs • talk) 23:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — Lit1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Administrator note - Lit1979 started editing yesterday and went straight for AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As at least one editor has pointed out elsewhere, Lit1979 seems to be making valid contributions at Afd, stating that he or she has been following Wikipedia for some time. The editor doesn't seem to be default-!voting one way or another. Let's WP:AGF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Li[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable as the article has stayed basically exactly how it started in August 2010 and the best my searches found were only here, here, here and here, nothing outstanding to suggest immediate better artists notability and improvement here. Notifying involved past users Boing! said Zebedee, Drmies and Xymmax in case they have comments. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is as promotional as the original version was, the one deleted by JamesBWatson in 2010--in fact, it looks to be a carbon copy. At the time DGG removed a speedy deletion template (guess I missed that, Boing), but look at phrases like "The knowledge we have gathered is the fruit of many years of experiments with temperature control". The creator, Leochou, has done nothing positive to the article, and has only restored the unencyclopedic and promotional content. (Note that Mean as custard also removed 12k of promotional material, three years ago.) There are no reliable sources, nothing to mitigate the resume-style vanispam. Thanks for the nomination: it's time for this to go. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of meeting the criterion for WP:CREATIVE, having multiple works in major museums. There can always be a question of whether the museums are major enough, but the speedy I removed was for A7, and having those works was certainly enough to pass Speedy. The promotionalism has been a problem. But looking at the article history, there hasn't been a major attempt at adding (or adding back) promotionalism since 2012, so we seem to be able to keep this fairly clean. It could certainly be cleaned up further. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the keep above and because deletion is not cleanup. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally promotional article, which easily qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion G11. If the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which may be so, but sources showing that it is so have not been provided) then it will be better to delete this unsuitable article and write a better one if someone is willing to do so, but far too often we get people arguing to keep a crap article on the grounds that it "can be cleaned up", and then, when it is kept, show no interest whatever in actually cleaning it up. I have no doubt that the motives of editors making such arguments are honourable, but the practical effect is that we keep articles in a state which nobody thinks should be kept. As long as the article is spam it qualifies for deletion, and should not be kept on the basis of speculation about the merits of some hypothetical non-spam article which doesn't actually exist. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd agree with the keep if there were references from independent reliable sources which backed up the claims made in the article. But there aren't, and I couldn't find any. Searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. The article could be deleted on notability grounds, but also as per WP:DEL4, since it reads like a promo piece for the artist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Toronto FC#Players of the Year. Only sourced winners, though. Also, redirect after the merge is completed. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 10:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toronto FC Players of the Year[edit]

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

Without reliable sources, this should be deleted along with Template:Toronto FC Player of the Year. The one source can be moved to Cann's article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References have been found for most seasons now which should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to Toronto FC#Players of the Year, but only sourced winners. Only a few references have been found, and the references that were found, are for winners long ago. It doesn't support the article's current relevancy as stated recent winners like Giovinco, Bradley, and Caldwell, all do not have sources. I can't find a single source that says Giovinco has won this award from last season. Just because some references were found for players long ago, if no references are found for current players, it doesn't prove its current relevancy to the club. TFC and MLS haven't ever published an article on this award from what I've researched. In the article's current state, I would delete, as it doesn't support current relevancy to today without more current references. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The currently sourced content could easily be copied into the main TFC article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the info can be copied into the actual TFC article. There is no need for its own page. But it still does not prove its current relevancy as the current award winners stated do not have sources. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the parent article (and then redirect this) at Toronto FC#Players of the Year, see similar at Bradford City A.F.C.#Player of the Year. If the nominator wants to delete the template then please use WP:TFD. Giant Snowman 10:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Toronto FC#Players of the Year. This is a significant award within the club, but not notable enough for a stand-alone article. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Toronto FC#Players of the Year. Insufficient number of awards and insufficient wider coverage to necessitate standalone article. Fenix down (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Jensen[edit]

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

Insignificant public servant, seems to have been created to make a point about his salary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify that while this is the second nomination for a page with this title, it is unrelated to the Colin Jensen who was the subject of the first iteration.
I created this article after seeing a broken link for Colin Jensen on the page for City of Brisbane. It was indeed not made to make a point about his salary. I was hesitant leaving an entire section for remuneration - I'll work on that; this is the first article that I have made. I respectfully dispute that he is an insignificant public servant - I would contend that the CEO of the largest LGA in the country is rather significant. Give me some time to beef it up a bit, thanks! Prymal (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The chief executive of a major city council is clearly notable and hardly "insignificant". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please point to the notability guideline which says this LibStar (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always demand guidelines as if that's the be all and end all of Wikipedia? Common sense doesn't need guidelines. This is the day-to-day manager of a city of two and a quarter million people for crying out loud! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

because that's how we assess notability. We have established guidelines. For ages you used to carry on about all ambassadors being automatically notable because it's common sense when there is no guideline or consensus which states that. Then you said being ambassador to Russia is automatically notable despite everyone else on the AfD voting delete. Time to stop inventing your own notability bar and stick to established guidelines. Or better still actually search for sources to establish WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should probably try reading WP:BURO. Amazed you haven't done already given how long you've been here. Wikipedia is governed by consensus. Consensus is created largely at AfD. We are here to discuss whether this individual is notable, not immediately disqualify him because there's no guideline that specifically says he is (that would mean Wikipedia was a bureaucracy and would render AfD discussion pointless). I have an opinion. I am entitled to express it. This is not "inventing [my] own notability bar". It is saying what I believe to be true in the best interests of Wikipedia. You really need to learn the difference. And for the record, I still believe that ambassadors are inherently notable! Consensus for the moment is against me, which is why I have generally stopped bothering to argue it. It certainly doesn't mean I've changed my opinion. Neither does it mean that I'm not entitled to express my opinion (odd that you seem to think it does - clearly you're not really a fan of discussion on Wikipedia). And consensus can change. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand how notability works in Wikipedia. People in particular must meet one of the notability guidelines if not the basic WP:GNG or WP:BIO applies yet I've never seen you actually demonstrate or search for coverage which is the best way to save an article instead quoting "opinions" that don't have any consensus as some sort of pseudo notability guideline, it really is WP:ITSNOTABLE. Consensus does change but you need to argue your case for changing notability guidelines on respective talk pages which many editors do if consensus changes. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem not to understand how not to patronise very experienced editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's not patronising, as an experienced editor you should know how afds work, again you're making no genuine attempt to find sources. And again your pseudo notability opinion doesn't have consensus. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete whilst a mayor of a large city council is usually granted notability, chief executives do not, and thus need to satisfy WP:BIO. he is a senior public servant but insufficient in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His position is not notable enough and he still doesn't meet the GNG benchmark given the sources cited. Delta13C (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what GNG benchmark means?Prymal (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an inherently notable position and fails GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A city manager or CAO can get into Wikipedia if an article about them can be written that's substantive enough and well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG, but it is not a position that can confer an automatic inclusion freebie just because the person exists — and there are many places much larger than Brisbane where the CAO does not have an article, so Brisbane's size has no bearing on the matter one way or the other. One of the reasons we have inclusion standards and reliable sourcing requirements is that having a Wikipedia article is actually a double-edged sword — because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, a significant number of anybodies regularly try to misuse us as a venue for publishing attack edits against our article topics. So Wikipedia's standards are designed to mitigate against that, by ensuring that our subjects have (a) sufficient media coverage by which the content can be properly verified, and (b) enough public prominence that a reasonable number of responsible Wikipedians can actually be expected to maintain a satisfactory level of quality control over the article. There is a level of prominence below which the wiki model falls flat on its face, because there are so few people visiting the article that vandalism or attack edits can go uncaught for weeks or even months at a time because nobody's even seeing it. So our inclusion standards and RS requirements and WP:BLP rules are designed in part around the principle of protecting people from the unintended consequences of a Wikipedia article — so for that reason, one editor's subjective opinion about "common sense" cannot trump WP:GNG or WP:RS. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youssry Saleh & Partners[edit]

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

YALF - yet another non-notable law firm, fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and so the subject of this article fails our notability guideline for corporations, as the nominator says. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per discussion at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not demonstrated Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Never close on one !vote but GNG is clearly met, Obvious Keep imho (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TeleNav[edit]

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

My searches found nothing better than a few press releases and passing mentions and none of was even minimally solid in-depth coverage. It's also worth noting this was deleted as a three sentences unsourced article in 2006 (but no symmetrical so G4 is not applicable) and also speedied as G11 in 2010. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13]. Some sources cover the company's products, which is fine per WP:PRODUCT, which states, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." These sources were all found using the Google News and Google Books links atop this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Toyota Turns to Telenav for Navigation in Vehicles". Bloomberg.com. 31 July 2015.
^ "Telenav Copies Foursquare's Swarm With New Social App, HopOver". TechCrunch. AOL. 22 September 2014.
^ "Scout by Telenav (for iPhone)". PCMAG.
^ "Scout by Telenav (for Android)". PCMAG.
^ "Telenav Buys Skobbler For $24M To Power An OpenStreetMap Challenge To Google Maps". TechCrunch. AOL. 30 January 2014.
^ Wayne Cunningham (7 July 2014). "Scout by Telenav review - CNET". CNET. CBS Interactive.
^ David Meyer. "Telenav outs Scout app, not to be confused with its other Scout app".
^ "TeleNav GPS Plus (for iPhone)". PCMAG.
^ "Hands On With TeleNav Scout in a 2012 Ford Edge". PCMAG.
^ Joel Evans. "Telenav's Scout is my preferred iOS Maps Alternative". ZDNet.
^ "TeleNav Introduces Its First GPS Navigation Device". PCWorld. 9 November 2008.
^ "Proceedings of the Second International Airborne Remote Sensing Conference".
^ "Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics".

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of busiest railway stations in Andhra Pradesh[edit]

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

There list is currently entirely original research, because there are no sources ranking these railway stations. The rankings currently seem to be based on the number of trains that visit each, taken from a primary source; therefore, there is no way to be sure that other stations with more traffic do not exist.

Additionally, there is no indication that the topic of this list is notable. List of railway stations in Andhra Pradesh might just be notable, but would be redundant with List of railway stations in India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. Wikipedia is not a repository for variations of lists of things. So, as it can be considered redundant, this OR article should go. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) 00:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly WP:OR. There are no sources to establish that this is a notable list, only that these railway stations exist. Msnicki (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR.--Vin09 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. We could possibly create a category for these rather than an article. Nordic Dragon^talk 08:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone else[edit]

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

I do not believe that it is clear that bae is an acronym. The main source for the article states that 'One tale supposes that bae is in fact the acronym BAE, standing for “before anyone else.” But people often like to make up such origin stories that linguists later discover were absolute poppycock, like the idea that the f-word is an acronym dating back to royal days when everyone needed the king’s permission to get in the sack'. Bae is more likely to be a backronym, and I believe it is unlikely that any reliable source will prove to the contrary. Matt J ^User|Talk 18:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if this is a hoax article, but the sources cited here do not support the conclusion that the term "bae" is an acronym. According to reliable sources, the acronym theory is derived from a post at Urban Dictionary (see this article in Esquire, this article in Bustle, and this article in The Atlantic). I should also note that there is a dating app called "BAE", which uses the term as an acronym for "before anyone else" (see this link to the app). In any event, deletion is appropriate here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I believe everything on the page, it's still just a WP:DICDEF followed by a short synthesized WP:ESSAY. I'd need to see a lot more references demonstrating usage and cultural impact before I'd consider moving bae outside Wiktionary and into Wikipedia. Aspirex (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Additionally, if there were to be an article on the word "bae", it should be at Bae, not at a supposed acronym, given that the origin is unclear. Smith(talk) 13:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Bae" passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT and could be its own article, but the TIME article clearly states that "before anyone else" is probably a backronym. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Milwaukie, Oregon. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gamba[edit]

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

As a mayor of a city with only 20,000 people does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:POLOUTCOMES. Support redirect to Milwaukie, Oregon and possible sentence or two about Gamba included in the "Mayors" section. MB298 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would support that redirect for the reasons listed above. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to town he is mayor of as he is non notable local politician. Seasider91 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is quite obvious and I would've even closed as such but I'll keep it open if others comment further. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per the reasons and policies cited by the nominator. – SJ Morg (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Smalltown mayors can get into Wikipedia under WP:NPOL #3 if the article is genuinely substantive and well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG, but they are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist. This cites just one piece of reliable source coverage, and is otherwise parked entirely on his primary source profile on the city's own website — so GNG has not been met. Redirect acceptable, though I'd actually prefer to just delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created by sock of blocked user User:Bigchoysun Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big choy sun[edit]

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

No references to assert the subject's notability CatcherStorm ^talk 18:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above. Seems a bit excessively promotional as well. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Model of the World[edit]

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

Completely unsourced & no indication of notability in this article. The Banner talk 18:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10]^[11]. See WP:NEXIST, which is part of the Wikipedia:Notability page: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Christina is 'Top Model of the World' Zambia - Zambia Daily Mail". Zambia Daily Mail.
^ Sunday Observer
^ "Pushpika to Make a Dream Debut".
^ "Yuen proves she's the next top model".
^ "Baci represents Ghana at the Top Model of the World Pageant".
^ Abigail O'Leary (16 August 2015). "Aigburth model jetting to Egypt for Top Model of the World competition". Liverpool Echo.
^ "Jade eyes up model trophy ..."
^ "Bahamas' Celeste Marshall begins stay in Egypt for Top Model of the World".
^ "Zimbabwe: Zim in World's Next Top Model Pageant". allAfrica.com.
^ "Malaika heads for Miss Top Model of the World". News Day.
^ "Celeste Marshall named first runner-up at Top Model of the World competition". The Nassau Guardian.

Happy editing! But WP:NEXIST is one of the biggest blunders of the community as it turns the burden of proof not to the editor (as is usual) but to the nominator. So I invoke WP:IAR on this point and want the notability to be proven in the article. The Banner talk 23:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the "edit this page" link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Also, please see WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Articles for deletion is not an article cleanup service. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not be rude, but most of your "sources" are about the contestants. Not about the pageant itself. Passing mentions are not regarded reliable sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 13:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ROUTINE news coverage, mainly based on press releases, does not provide the independent third party in depth coverage required by WP:EVENT. Since WP:BURDEN applies too, unsourced and fancruft will likely be removed shortly. And since few editors will have ever heard of this event it's a also ran small pageant business. Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While sympathetic regarding The Banner's viewpoint (I too find the laziness of some editors not to write articles with valid citations exasperating), the policy cited by Northamerica1000 is what this article must be judged by. And not every AfD participant is as diligent as NA in putting the found citations into an article. Besides those added by NA, there are literally hundreds of articles on News which talk about this competition, from Russia and Romania, to Scotland, Britain, the US, African nations. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. plenty of reliable sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG by a reasonable margin.

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Kastner[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Koblenz[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with the comment, "needs afdv". Just another interchange like thousands of others. Each interchange needs to be individually discussed on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG. This one clearly does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails to assert notability in line with WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not every interchange is notable. sst✈ 03:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. According to one reliable source (here), the logistics centre adjacent to this interchange is rapidly developing, with Amazon and Lidl already in place. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To provide more time as requested. Sandstein 17:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Bog-standard cloverleaf with no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there anything that makes this interchange more notable beyond its design? Wikipedia could have articles on thousands of cloverleaf interchanges. There should be stricter criteria here. --Artene50 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every Kreuz or Dreieck connects two Autobahns, and the encyclopedia has good coverage of the Autobahns. There is no policy basic to delete at AfD a topic already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. These Kreuz's and Dreieck's satisfy the fundamental purpose of notability, to limit topics to those described in the nutshell as "attracts the attention of the world at large". Given that major roads in Western civilization attract ongoing daily attention from multiple layers of government and news media as well as the general public, and whose minor defects have the ability to remove politicians from office, editors bringing articles like this to AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT rather than WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Our baseline is the WP:GNG, and this subject has just not attracted "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" to warrant coverage as a separate article. WP:V is not the right standard to use for determining if a subject gets an article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, WP:GNG-centrism is a known bias in our community. WP:GNG is a subset of WP:N. WP:V is a core content policy, and not a notability guideline. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of the few US interchanges with an article, the Springfield Interchange, is not too far from here; but the reason it has an article is that there has been a lot of press on it over the years because of the long series of alterations caused partly by changes in the connecting roads but also because it was for many years grossly inadequate. Meanwhile the rest of the DC beltway interchanges just sit there and only show up in traffic reports and in routine traffic statistics. Sure, inerchanges have the potential for notability, but few actually achieve it: mostly they perform as designed, and there is little remark about that. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is that unlike saying that we should only keep lighthouses that get lots of press over the years due to frequent alterations, and cut lighthouses that just sit there while performing as designed? How is that a guideline-based argument? Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - because that's clearly saying that this particular interchange doesn't pass WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; we cannot say "if we keep lighthouses we must keep interchanges". Lighthouses are major landmarks and often have realms of writing on them; interchanges are usually not and most often do not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've done a lot of lighthouse articles, but the thing is, people write books and large websites on lighthouses, and it is possible to provide a history on nearly all of them. The same can be done for a few interchanges, but not many. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All interchanges on Autobahns are named so there is no special presumption of notability, and no evidence of WP:GNG being met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Osnabrück-Süd[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with the comment, "needs afd". Just another interchange like thousands of others. Each interchange needs to be individually discussed on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG. This one clearly does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails to assert notability in line with WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not every interchange is notable. sst✈ 03:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To provide more time as requested. Sandstein 17:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claim of notability and no guideline asserting default notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange; all interchanges on Autobahns are named so there is no special presumption of notability, and no evidence of WP:GNG being met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I have been unable to demonstrate even the real existence DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Entrepreneurship and Business Management[edit]

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

There is no independent coverage of this academy in reliable sources that would establish this as notable. Whpq (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as none of this currently suggests a better acceptable article. Notifying DGG and Wikicology who may be interested with this subject AfD, in case they're not aware of this current nomination. SwisterTwister talk 20:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No point wasting time in leaving this open, Obvious Keep is obvious (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Green Party[edit]

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

The subject fails to assert notability, along with any references or in-line citations both to back up just an assertation, along with other claims made in the article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Wisconsin Green Party is a recognized statewide political party with a history dating back to 1988 and a number of elected officials. While the article surely needs to be cleaned up and better citations are needed, deleting it would serve no purpose whatsoever.--TM 03:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Namiba. If the state of Wisconsin recognizes it, we are good to go. Looks like they've actually elected people, that's a plus. Some cleanup and expansion would b good, though. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is in bad shape. However, WP:Deletion policy is not the answer as WP:Deletion policy is not for editorial disputes. Unscintillating (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a lot of unverifiable material and BLP violations. Feel free to revert. Unscintillating (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reverted. There were no controversial statements about living people, therefore no WP:BLP violations. All of the material you deleted is verifiable. I've verified it with two sources. There is a big difference between "unverifiable" and uncited.--TM 12:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't. Anything that is NOT cited is allowed to be removed from an article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Namiba. The Wisconsin Green Book is mentioned in the Wisconsin Blue Book 2015-2016, pg. 856-860 and has information about the officials of the party and the party's platform. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because a pary carries the name "Green Party" does NOT make it inheriently notable. Notability is not show in the article. And the article is poorly sourced, not even salvagable at this point if you take out all the stuff that is unsourced. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (see "If it's not notable", below). "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it." Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close, and sanction the nom, who is engaged in an apparently politically motivated deletion jihad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close – article already deleted under WP:G5 by Sphilbrick. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Ali[edit]

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

Contested PROD - biography of actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR. She has had roles in a number of TV dramas but as far as I can see these are all minor parts. All sources are blogs, listings, or primary sources. bonadea contributions talk 16:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as mentioned, none of this suggests solidly satisfying actors notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 01:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator Wiki Guide has been blocked as a sockpuppet. clpo13_(talk) 16:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As a public radio station this may be able to be proven to be notable; if WP:GNG-meeting sources are provided a new article may be writable. In the meantime, however, the consensus is to apply the WP:TNT. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Station X (radio station)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Can't find any reliable sourcing to prove notability. Lithorien (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notablity guideline for companies. Article creator has an admitted conflict of interest [1]. --Drm310 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. no third party coverage provided. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above reasons. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 08:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Razavi[edit]

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

Appears to be NN individual lacking non-trivial support. References are either listings or examples of her articles. Nothing in-depth to support article. reddogsix (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN journo doing their job.TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some additional references. A previous discussion after I created the page in February 2015 decided this journalist was notable enough for inclusion. I would argue as contributors did then that regular contributions to The Guardian and teaching on behalf of that newspaper is an assertion of notability. If it is decided this entry should be removed, I would suggest many other journalists' entries should also be removed, e.g. Jon Henley, Jenny Kleeman, Jon Bounds, and that perhaps my project to increase the coverage of journalists here is misguided. Journotracker 15:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There was only one previous discussion that took place November 26 2013. What you refer to in 2/2015 was a comment that the article did not meet the criteria for A7 deletion and was not a discussion by the Wikipedia community. If we review the references in the article I find 4-404 pages; 4-lists of articles she penned; 2-instances of her name being in a list; 6-minor mentions; 1-lacking any mention of the individual; and 1-self published blog article. These are hardly enough to support the inclusion of the individual in Wikipedia. Have I missed something? reddogsix (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that subject is sufficiently notable to be included as she regularly contributes to notable press titles. Wikipedia features many lesser known subjects. Subjects do not need to be stars in order to be included, but notable enough to be cited by reliable sources that meet Wikipedia standards. This subject fits that criteria. Current Wikipedia coverage of journalists is very weak compared to celebrities etc, and more coverage (as long as impartial, meaningful and well cited) should be encouraged. -- delilah_folk 19:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide where, "...contributes to notable press titles," is a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. I see no extensive review of the articles. Wikipedia may include lessor subjects, but we are discussing Lauren Razavi, no one else. Read WP:WAX - other stuff may exist, but it has no bearing here. You refer to reliable sources, but the "references" are trivial in nature - see the breakdown above. I cannot comment on the coverage of journalists; however, I agree that coverage of all qualified subjects should be encouraged, but not at the expense of the established standards. (By the way, no one is discouraging their inclusion.) reddogsix (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I've just replaced the three links with errors that a user mentioned above. All links direct to valid pages now. -- delilah_folk 20:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A list of workshops she has taught, one sentence with her name, and a page that lacks mention of her are far from non-trivial entries. reddogsix (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough independent and in-depth coverage to pass BLP. Delta13C (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a promotional advert for the journalist in question, probably written by the journalist herself or some other close COI. I checked the refs and none of them are RS, mostly trivial or links to her work - nothing to indicate notability. The two keep votes in this AFD haven't addressed the nominators concerns - nor can they in my opinion. Previously deleted at AFD. Szzuk (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as there are several listed sources but there could also be a better solid article. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close – article already deleted under WP:G5 by Sphilbrick. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uroosa Qureshi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Biography of actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR - it appears to be too soon for an article. bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At present no indication that the subject is notable per WP:NACTOR. I'd probably recommend redirecting to Piya Ka Ghar Pyaara Lage, but that article doesn't exist. (It's a redirect.) Problematic references as well, like this one and this one, I think the article creator, Wiki Guide might need a course in reliable sourcing since many of the articles he's created (in a really short span of time) are problematic. Has the ring of paid editing to me because of how hastily the articles were created. But that's a matter better addressed elsewhere. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet satisfying actors notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator Wiki Guide has been blocked as a sockpuppet. clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Guðrið_Hansdóttir. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Byrta[edit]

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

I don't see the his group meeting any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Snaevar (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only question here is whether the article should be kept or merged/redirected to the article for notable group member Guðrið Hansdóttir. That is a content discussion, not a matter for AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No argument is presented here as to how WP:MUSICBIO is met. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep the article, but improve the refs. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't demonstrated how notability is established. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NMUSIC, which requires 2 albums or proof of national charting. I don't have access to Icelandic materials, so I am basing this on the article, but I don't see 1) multiple albums 2)major label 3) national charting 4) awards. You could easily argue that this policy does not make it easy for indie bands or musicians from outside major Western countries to get into WP, and I couldn't disagree, but that's what we have to work with. Even without trying to stick to some strict letter of the policy, nothing here speaks to notability. They are a band. They tour. They have an album. LaMona (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now in any case as none of this currently suggests even a minimally better article. SwisterTwister talk 18:26, 27 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} 15:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guðrið_Hansdóttir. The duo itself seems non-notable, but if she's notable enough for her own article, I can see where pointing people searching for the duo to the small section of her page would ultimately improve the encyclopedia. Lithorien (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead perhaps as there may, at least from what I currently see, be better for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Top Model of the World. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Model of The World 2010[edit]

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

Minor pageant event. This is one of only 2 years that have a page. No sources, and unlikely to find RS making this a purely promotional page. Legacypac (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Top Model of the World. Sources exist as per the Google News link atop this discussion, but the depth of coverage may not be enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank-you for clarifying- I meant sources for all the detail, not just that it happened and who won. Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Top Model of the World. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Model of the World 2011[edit]

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

Minor pageant event. Most editions don't have a page. No sources and likely can't be sourced to RS, only to primary or blog/fansites. Legacypac (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Top Model of the World. Sources exist as per the Google News link atop this discussion, but the depth of coverage may not be enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I'm sure RS type sources exist to prove the event happened, but not to provide the depth of detail in the article or to justify a standalone article. All the somewhat important detail is already in the main article. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 06:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Serena Williams tennis season[edit]

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

Userfy, maybe a little bit too early, as it is only January 2 now; also, she might not complete this year with a good grade. 333 -blue 14:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy since nothing actually happened yet in this topic Legacypac (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep each of Williams' seasons from 2003 onwards have an artcile, including her 2006 season during which she contested only four tournaments and finished the year ranked 95 in the world. A year completed without a "good grade." DPickwick (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily fits the criteria since she has already been ranked number 1 during the season, and had previously won a major. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as group matches for Hopman cup have already been confirmed as tournament starts in 2 days time Seasider91 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In two weeks or so, this will all be as mootily moot as it gets. How can the #1 ranked player not get an article? If she did fall (a la Eugenie Bouchard), that would be a huge story and merit an article anyway. Heads she wins, tails she "wins". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This AfD will be moot on Monday when she plays in the 2016 Hopman Cup. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jkudlick: she didn't play it today. 333 -blue 08:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Userfy until she plays (she withdrew from the 2016 Hopman Cup due to injury). At that point, it can be moved back to mainspace. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC); 09:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy incubate and salt until 1 January 2017. Fails WP:V, WP:WEBHOST, WP:NEWSPAPER. This is not an article we want in mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: your idea is extremely rediclous, though there're wiki pages. 333 -blue 13:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comment unclear. What has my !vote got to do with wiki pages? Which of the three elements of "delete", "speedy incubate" and "salt until 1 January 2017" do you find "extremely rediculous"? Would it clarify if I added "or Userfy" in bold? Unscintillating (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It fits the criteria for number 1 ranked as she it did start the year ranked number 1. Matt294069 is coming 23:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per criteria previously mentioned by Dpickwick. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- the article aggregates notable tournaments that a notable subject is participating in this year. There are also valid reasons given by other editors above which I wish not to repeat. Aha... (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Materialscientist (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books written in unconventional ways[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic trivia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LSC because inclusion in this list will necessarily be based on subjective and ambiguous criteria. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, starting with no indication of notability. A Google search using the title of the book found no relevant discussion of the topic. A search using some of the content turned up two other Wikipedia pages: Books written in Different Ways, which was later moved to the page under discussion, and Five books written in five ways, which was Speedy Deleted as (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: A7 - individuals); however, there's no indication of what it might be a copy of. Perhaps http://highrangebookofrecords.com/five-books-written-in-five-different-ways-using-pen-henna-needle-paper-carbon/, listed as one of the references; the Wikipedia page is closely based on it, though not clear to me if it is legally a copyvio. However, what is clear to me from the original source is that these books were not originally written in unusual ways--which could potentially be a worthwhile article--but that some guy decided to transcribe these noteworthy books using unusual methods. Ma^t_chups 21:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned as this is not yet set for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring the potential issues raised above, the inclusion criteria are too subjective. If there is coverage of a specific phenomenon, such as transcribing the mirror image of a book, that could be created. But we can't make up a list of subjectively "interesting" or "odd" things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Needle writing for another contribution by the same editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not worry so much about the inclusion criteria. This is a poor excuse for a stub with no sources whatsoever. This could be a hoax article. Dimadick (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Materialscientist (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagvadgita in Mirror Image[edit]

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

Trivia. Not really notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There's this source, but after several searches, that's all I'm finding. Does not meet WP:BKCRIT or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Northamerica1000, the article subject fails WP:BKCRIT and WP:GNG. It's simply the Bhagavad Gita mirrored and written in two languages. There's nothing notable about that. clpo13_(talk) 00:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look like there's any results but blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Std codes of chhattisgarh[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't a phonebook. Bazj (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bajz - this article does not belong on Wikipedia. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Productions[edit]

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

The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) or at least enough to build a full article. No substantial hits in a custom Google search for vetted music sources. (And, for what it's worth, this German label doesn't have a dewp page.) No suitable merge/redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 19:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - it'd be nice to have this one, but it needs, ah, anything. fr: and it: versions of the page are not useful either - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there will be no more comments this week, it will probably be closed as no consensus Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards recreation if she becomes more notable in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Buhler[edit]

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

Before I deleted it as untrue this said she is a photographer, film director and actor. In fact she was/is a student. With so little to go on, we should delete and leave her on the Miss South Dakota USA page where most of the other title winners also have no page. The only reference is a "local person wins award" which is not notable. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The total lack of links sources still does not seem to even support the African-American claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some extra sources. Not sure if it passes notability though. --TheDomain (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her first film is not due to be released for a year, so that does not give her anything yet. Directing one music video... I see a new director starting a career, so maybe later she deserves an article. A redirect would preserve the work to date in the history in case she hits the big time. Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It just seems like a case of her being put on here a little too soon. Lithorien (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Tang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only notable as VICTIM whose accused murderer was found not guilty. That's no basis to write an article on and this should only be covered by any article about the accused or the crime. Otherwise fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous AfD; notability is not temporary. She was a public figure who was marginally notable for her short career, but enough that her death received significant coverage in reliable sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 2009 AFD was a horror show, and resulted in significant disregard of core policies. Very little of the sourcing is genuinely reliable; instead, tabloid-quality coverage of a sensational murder case was picked up and repeated from mirrors of content that was deleted from Wikipedia uncontroversially in no small part because it was unreliable. Felicia Tang was no more than an uncredited extra in a few mainstream films; at the time of her death, as I recall, she wasn't even mentioned in the full-length IMDB cast lists for those films. She also wasn't a porn performer; instead, she made some T&A videos which were clearly NSFW but apparently no "stronger" than Red Shoe Diaries, Showtime After Dark, and "Skinemax". But through the zeal of some Wikipedia editors who were insistent on memorializing every woman who undresses for a camera, her family now is comforted by an enduring Internet presentation of her as a sex worker and a drug addict. Just about every premise for notability of the subject proves wrong, yet a substantially inaccurate article persists. Not something Wikipedia can be proud of in any way. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the two 2009 AfD's which you started closed with a Delete six days before her death. You say now that the AfD'd article was "deleted from Wikipedia uncontroversially in no small part because it was unreliable", and yet I see not a word of "unreliable" in the first 2009 AfD. Next, why did you say in that 2009 nomination that she failed WP:PORNBIO if you now say that she "wasn't a porn performer"? And now you seem to be claiming that CBSNews and the LATimes each got their material from Wikipedia mirrors, but these news media are WP:RS, and you are not. The point is not that your opinion in this regard doesn't matter, but I think you'd need to do more than make unsourced assertions. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that the previous AfD in 2009 went through a lot of these same issues and is very illustrative here. Basically, the subject under consideration here again now has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" and/or passes GNG pretty easily - with plenty of mentions from Kompas, CBS News (several times), the Los Angeles Times (several times), the Pasadena Star-News, The Sydney Morning Herald, WRC-TV & KTLA - just to name a few. These publications not only covered this subject's death, but they also went into varying amounts of detail about this subject's life before her death. I've pretty heavily edited the article under consideration here (both recently and earlier this year) in order to try & see if there were any valid concerns about content "from mirrors of content that was deleted from Wikipedia", and I tried to be careful to weed out anything that looked odd. These same concerns were apparently aired unsuccessfully in 2009 on the article's talk page as well. If the article needs to be changed (content-wise) or renamed now, then so be it, but Wikipedia can pretty clearly have a reliable article about the subject here at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet notability guidelines for pornographic actors. The coverage of her murder is not enough to propel her to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hullaballoo - I apologize for how this is gonna come out ....but ..... if you take away the death sources you have nothing but IMDb crap (which aren't sources!) ... So despite her being an actress and working at all these different places - the article is only sourced on her death and nothing else (I can't find anything else either on the subject except her death) so IMHO I don't believe she's notable and one could argue Brian Lee Randone could have an article and this be redirected there.... Point is she's "notable" for her death and not much else so as it stands this article is in some respects a Memorial and that's it .... so IMHO she's a non notable actress who fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with using IMDb as a citation for simple things like their reliable cast listings, especially when (as in this case here) they are backed up by other reliable sources in addition to IMDb. Guy1890 (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep firstly because of the previous AfD, notability is not temporary. plenty of reliable sources and high profile case. Clearly keep article. Also per WP:GNG. Just because she made her career within the porn industry doesnt make her notability less notable than an actress within mainstream film.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly that is not the case otherwise we wouldn't have PORNBIO for porn actors and NACTOR for mainstream actors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a case to move to Felicia Tang Lee as the name most often used by reliable sources, especially in Australia, but the 2013 decision of 48 Hours to go with her trade name suggests leaving it where it is. The article has sources from nationally recognized media both in the US and Australia, with 77 inline citations already present in the article. The dead links found after the AfD nomination and not notated by the nominator give the impression that the nominator did not click on the links of each of the sources in the article before concluding that they failed GNG. WP:BEFORE analysis has not been provided for the versions of this article on three other Wikipedia's. I'll list a few media with sources I found with Google searches: cbsnews, huffingtonpost, and LA Times; and from Australia abc.net.au, dailytelegraph.com.au, and theaustralian.com. CBSNews continued to follow this story into 2014 with a news article and a 48 Hours segment called "The Preacher's Passion". The segment initially aired on June 1, 2013 and was updated on Aug. 2, 2014. A quote, "Brian Randone's murder trial lasted four weeks. The trial had become quite the sensation, with local media dubbing it the case of 'the preacher and the porn star.' The newspapers just grabbed onto that..." (www.cbsnews.com/news/the-mysterious-death-of-felicia-tang/) Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Humbug! showed very subjective attitude towards articles for pornographic actors. Delete all, then you satisfied!--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing establishes that she is a well-known murder victim, albeit such a minor actress/model that I would support moving article to Murder of Felicia Wang. While I agree that the 2nd AFD correctly supported Keep onthe basis of the extensive coverage, I am impressed by the ongoing coverage here: [2] and here: [3]], for example.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Uckermark[edit]

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

If something can be notable for not being used frequently, this would qualify. If not, then this is a pretty non-notable interchange. Be more than happy to withdraw this nomination if consensus that being the least used is noteworthy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no claim to notability other than by being an interchange, which isn't enough. Mangoe (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as written, this fails the General Notability Guideline, as it does not display "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 13:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Redirect to Bundesautobahn 11 with Template:R with possibilities Every Kreuz or Dreieck connects two Autobahns, and the encyclopedia has good coverage of the Autobahns. There is no policy basic to delete at AfD a topic already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, and this one policy requirement refutes each of the above delete arguments or pseudo-arguments. The most that policy allows with a consensus of non-notability is a full merge to one of the target articles. (This would be before consideration of WP:DUE and WP:V.) The argument that this topic fails either WP:N or WP:GNG carries little weight; first since no attempt has been made above to determine if GNG sources exist; and second because these Kreuz's and Dreieck's satisfy the fundamental purpose of notability, which is to limit topics to those described in the nutshell as "attracts the attention of the world at large". Major roads in Western civilization attract ongoing daily attention from multiple layers of government and news media, as well as the general public. Relatively minor road defects, potholes, can remove politicians from office. Editors bringing articles like this to AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. This article seems to satisfy WP:V, but the quality of the writing is a draft. Another alternative here would be to move the article to Draft space and change the resulting redirect to Bundesautobahn 11. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Major roads attract attention. Major interchanges do not. Autobahns are inherently notable as part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer. Interchanges between notable Autobahns do not inherit that notability. Otherwise I could write an article on the ridiculously non-notable interchange between I-75 and I-10 not too far from here and crush AfD arguments on it with "WP:ITEXISTS". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange; all interchanges on Autobahns are named so there is no special presumption of notability, and no evidence of WP:GNG being met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled to see you still quoting WP:RUNOFTHEMILL after I quoted to you what it says about roads. Did you read what I reported? It says that we don't need road coverage of every square mile of cities including cul-de-sacs. It also makes the rather interesting point rarely seen on Wikipedia that one reason to avoid making masses of road articles is that we don't have the editors to maintain such articles. In comparison, the 200 German Kreuz's and Dreieck's are the very opposite of run-of-the mill. Unscintillating (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and I'm surprised that you maintain an argument which was already discredited at another AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Südharz[edit]

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

Non-notable interchange. Nothing but routine coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claim of notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as written, this fails the General Notability Guideline, as it does not display "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 14:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All interchanges on Autobahns are named so there is no special presumption of notability, and no evidence of WP:GNG being met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Rostock[edit]

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

Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. No evidence of notability, indeed, no notability asserted in the article. Nothing but routine coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete No claim of notability for the most ordinary of cloverleafs. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. JTtheOG (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as written, this fails the General Notability Guideline, as it does not display "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 13:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange; all interchanges on Autobahns are named so there is no special presumption of notability, and no evidence of WP:GNG being met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Parthenaue[edit]

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

Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. No evidence of notability, indeed, no notability asserted in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. There is no guideline saying that highway interchanges are notable by default. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—as written, this fails the General Notability Guideline, as it does not display "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Imzadi 1979 → 14:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL trumpet interchange; all interchanges on Autobahns are named so there is no special presumption of notability, and no evidence of WP:GNG being met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Miss Universe Croatia. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Croatia 2015[edit]

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

Preliminary event to the world contest. We only have this one article on the many years it has run. Sourced mainly to a non-RS blog. Legacypac (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss Universe Croatia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mister Dominican Republic#Mister República Dominicana Universe Model, preferable to deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Jiménez Sabater[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT, participant in a pageant that has no own article. No reliable sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 11:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Obviously fails WP:NMODEL which is the applicable criteria here. Legacypac (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet satisfying WP:CREATIVE yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to OP @The Banner: - The paegant does have coverage at Mister Dominican Republic#Mister República Dominicana Universe Model. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mister Dominican Republic#Mister República Dominicana Universe Model. As the winner, it is a logical redirect to the section of winners there, a plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of passport offices in India[edit]

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

bvious violation of NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – agree with nominator, definitely a WP:NOTDIR violation. Aspirex (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a directory. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Tisdale[edit]

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

Normally I'd list this as A7, but anything involving pornographic performers is apt to be controversial. The career as an actor seems not to meet the standard for notability, and the specific accusation appears to me as BLP1E. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 13:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing solid to suggest solid independent notability, best signs of attention were for the sex video. SwisterTwister talk 17:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So she did a sex tape. There is no claim of notability per Wikipedia's porn performers guideline and notability is certainly not inherited from James Deen. This encounter borderline pro-am porn looks like a one-event situation to me. No opinion of notability as a comedian or writer. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and per apparently failing WP:ENT. --Cavarrone 23:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I withdraw my nomination since the disambiguation page has been populated with more articles. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 12:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SVX[edit]

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

Not needed per WP:TWODABS. But which is the primary topic? sst✈ 06:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 06:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 06:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 06:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and Redirect~~ doesnt really need to be deleted just changed to a redirect to the primary topic which is probably the airport but I dont have a strong view either way although does anybody actually refer to the bike as an "SVX". MilborneOne (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the good work from Boleyn changed to keep. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flawed nomination. WP:TWODABS (click on it) is only about dabs where the title ends in (disambiguation). No evidence has been put forward by either editor of why one would be a primary topic. Also seems WP:ATD was not followed, no one looked for addiional entries - now has 6 and a see also. If someone thinks they have evidence one is a primary, then that's for WP:RM. Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MilborneOne and SSTflyer, would you consider looking at the page again and consider changing your minds? Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page has been refactored since this AfD was raised and TWODABS no longer applies..— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MuEv[edit]

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

Despite a thorough search, I could not find any reliable secondary sources that discuss this topic. I have come to the conclusion that this article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NEOLOGISM, which appears to be the pet term of one particular Patent Author. Existence on the freedictionary is neither here nor there as it's an aggregator (FWIW, it took "MUEV" from AcronymFinder, which accepts user-submitted items and indicates that this acronym is very rare). It's possible that there's some aspects of this article which are not covered in Audio to video synchronization and/or Lip sync, but if so then one or both of those articles should be expanded without using this term.^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete term seems to be coined and not in general use. Legacypac (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Routes connecting Spain and France[edit]

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

The given sources do not estabilish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~no need to delete.Soulseek324 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)~~ struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be not only an original research creation, but also a how-to or directory against WP policies. Borock (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An entire wikiproject could be created on how to drive from one place to another. To go from a choice of 1,000 starting places to 1,000 destinations would be a million articles.Borock (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 02:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volkov Commander[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) 21:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While Volkov Commander (VC) is no longer maintained, it was one of the most wide-spread alternative Norton Commander-style file managers in DOS times (up into the late 1990s) and was particularly notable for its extremely small size and speed. At its time it saw detailed reviews and comparison tests with other file managers in local and international computer magazines and was a regular part of many typical DOS installations, in particular where Norton Commander was not suitable for size, speed or price reasons. Even today, decades after its heydays, it can be found on several download sites. This is clearly a notable topic by Wikipedia standards.

While I could provide a bunch of references from archived magazines, I don't have the time for it right now, unfortunately. However, the article in the Russian WP has a number of references, which could be used to improve our local article.

Besides, I consider it frivolous for a new account such as the nominator's to nominate a whole article series about well-known file managers for deletion after his original attempts to PROD (f.e. [4]) them over Christmas were contested (f.e. [5]) and a discussion opened ([6]) already, so the nominator appears to be more interested in getting rid of a bunch of articles by all means than discussing potential improvements. This is extremely bad style if not destructive behaviour, and it is wasting the precious time and energy of faithful contributing editors with procedural issues, which could be better spent working on articles. While the account is new, the nominator's actions show familiarity with Wikipedia's procedures much beyond what is typical for a new user. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. There is no reliable sources in the article, so I think that it should be improved or article should be deleted Marslo2015 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your delete !vote is assumed with the creation of this AFD discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The User marking this article deletion does not seem to acting under WP:AGF as has been pointed out on numerous other AFD's he has created. Searching the software's name returns numerous online articles in Russian (though I had to use google translate to confirm). Andrdema (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has a review (three stars) in the ZDNet Software Library 10,000. Mentioned casually in this book as an alternative to Norton Commander, which suggests it would have been a common product. Finding in-depth coverage on GBooks appears to require knowledge of either Russian or Polish. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James McDade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: -- one of many hundreds of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland; would not have an article had he not been killed under completely unsuspicious circumstances. Article is an autobiography, as well. Quis separabit? 21:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Hard to have an autobiography of someone who died before WP existed. Not sure what that point is. Not a strong article, and one could argue that this was just another IRA death, but there are sources that verify the statements. Kind of a footnote in the Troubles, but at least a named footnote. LaMona (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we make standalone articles for every footnote in history? (Rhetorical question, obviously.)
"Hard to have an autobiography of someone who died before WP existed." -- My bad, I meant "hagiographic" in nature. Thanks, Quis separabit? 16:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E Non-notable terrorist who blew himself up trying to plant a bomb at a civilian target. Sources, such as they are, relate to attempts by fellow militants to use his death to rally support for their violent activities. Delete as per WP:BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and E.M.Gregory. Snappy (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 02:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MuCommander[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software. No sources provided that are not affiliated with this software. Marslo2015 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs more sources.Echoechoradar (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC) struck !vote of a sockpuppet - they edited a number of AfD pages in addition to the one the sockpuppetry concerned, aparrently in a bid to make the sockpuppetry less conspicuous. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Turquoisesummer RichardOSmith (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. PCMag is not affiliated with the software. CarnivorousBunny^talk 22:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. There is no notable sources in the article so either article will be improved or should be deleted. This is the second AfD nomination - the first one finished with DELETE result. Marslo2015 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your delete !vote is assumed with the creation of this AFD discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The User marking this article deletion does not seem to acting under WP:AGF as has been pointed out on numerous other AFD's he has created. Searching the software's name returns numerous online articles. Andrdema (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Stephenson[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, NACTOR or ARTIST John from Idegon (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's simply obvious from his list of work, there are not even minimal signs of better notability and improvement here. Notifying Onel5969 who frequently participates at these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs work and his TV/film work is non-notable. Has minor notability as a musical theatre performer, being Broadway originator of the roles of Renfield in Dracula, the Musical, Bingo Little in By Jeeves with recording, and Charles Clarke in Titanic (musical) with recording. He also featured in the first complete (studio) recording of Guys and Dolls. Reworked Titanic in a production that, per [[7]], was nominated for 11 BroadwayWorld Awards, and has become the new standard version with UK and Chicago runs, and an upcoming Broadway revival ([8]). Recently directing Guys and Dolls in Connecticut, and has directed other productions that I really don't want to spend any more time on at this point, but which are reviewed in significant news sources (for example NYT, Post-Gazette, Broadway World). ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 14:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Hydronium Hydroxide that he's notable for stage work, including starring as Leo Bloom in The Producers and other assorted direction and acting. A couple more examples of coverage: [9][10]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for some of his credits like The Producers. He's enough of a name that he warrants an article so people can gather info on him when needed (school reports, etc.). Donmike10 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable.
" He's enough of a name that he warrants an article so people can gather info on him when needed (school reports, etc.)." -- uh, no -- that is not Wikipedia's purpose. Perhaps LinkedIn or Facebook are better places. Quis separabit? 02:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Irie[edit]

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

non notable chef. Nor associated with a famous restaurant, no major prizes, no really significant references DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here are some sources [11], [12], [13], [14] which are about the subject's television show debut on PBS. Most of the coverage is about the show debut, so this may be a WP:BLP1E matter at this time. This source provides some information about the subject's appearance at a Jamaican food festival, but it is too short to qualify for significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above links include one from an Atlanta-based publication, showing indepth coverage from publications far from Chef Irie's home base. He is a leading figure in the Jamaican food scene in south Florida and thus passes notability tests. The tests proposed with this deletion nomination would aggrevate systemic bias and the undercoverage of cultural figures outside of the European and Euro-American cultural landscape.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume those wanting to keep this would be comfortable with the elimination of the remarkably trivial "Awards" section -- of he is notable, listing things like this detract from it, not add to it. And do not think the show indicates notability , because this is not a show on the main PBS system, but an auxiliary lifestyle network. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, if anything the show, which isn't even mentioned by name on the article, would be more deserving of an article with a brief description about its host/chef.Burroughs'10 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft space. The consensus below is that this topic has potential, but the current state of the article isn't good enough for mainspace. Der yck C. 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Service governance[edit]

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

Vague article on non-distinctive topic, promoting one specific view of it. Part of a complex of very similar articles. They probably all need to be looked at to see which ones are worth saving, but this is the worst of them DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what articles you mean, but I'd expect this to be the 'worst of them' because it is the most recent. I have been given advice on providing proper citations, and I've started working on doing that. I'd like to improve the article, and have others in the same field help improve it - I am certainly aware of the need for improvement.

If you had a list of specific things I can do to make this, and the other articles you mention, hang together better, I'd be happy to start tackling the project.

This particular subject, lies in two separate, but connected fields - services and governance.

There articles on governance, such as those on the King III report, the Cadbury report and on 'comply or explain' governance.

There are also articles on services. From many different perspectives, some out of date, some very specific to some industries, and some, I think, fairly up-to-date and current. These cover subjects such as service management, iT service management, SOA, IT governance, and similar.

This particular subject, service governance, along with enterprise service management, is, part of a discipline convergence that's been on-going for a few years.

Fustbariclation~enwiki (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My first impression was WP:TNT, whatever the author was writing about was so jargonized as to be unusable; but I've rewritten some of the article, and while I think that it needs better sourcing, I believe that it is a valid topic. I have found the term used in what I think is this sence in a number of articles in GoogleScholar, some within an IT context and some within the broader corporate context, and one even in cross-organizational context. "Towards a service governance framework for the internet of services." This article was created on 10 December 2015 by Fustbariclation~enwiki who has been an editor since 8 August 2005. I've been able to identify two other articles that may, or may not, be in the nest mentioned by DGG in the nomination, namely:

Enterprise service management which appears to be a subset of "service governance" and should be a candidate for merger, and
ITIL/service design package

--Bejnar (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put out an invitation for people to help with editing this, and related, material. It's quite a big community, and I'm sure I'll find some people willing to spend time helping clear up the various related articles.

What would I need to do to make this more official? Is it possible to create a community of editors people with the requisite specialist knowledge can help with? Fustbariclation~enwiki (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy at best for now perhaps as there could be an article here but perhaps not a solid one yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy I'm with SwisterTwister: there may be a valuable topic underneath all this but the article doesn't add value in its current form. (I'm sure it's already been improved based on the discussion above.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Downey[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet BIO or any of its included standards. John from Idegon (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough adequate sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet solidly satisfying the general notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baby's First Test[edit]

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

The only reliable source coverage I can find of this website is press releases and things written by employees of the website or the Genetic Alliance who run it. Sam Walton (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches obviously found nothing better at all including from when GimliDotNet first tagged it in March 2012, clearly no further signs of better notability and improvement for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Please contact me if you would like the article userfied. Nakon 02:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Nights 1984[edit]

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

Fails notability for music articles. Entirely self-released output through Bandcamp. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are some sources covering this band, so it could satisfy the first criteria of WP:NMUSIC: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] --Dereckson (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy for now as there is quite an amount of links but perhaps not yet a solid notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources provided do not show significant coverage of the artist. Nakon 02:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voyag3r[edit]

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

Fails notability for music articles. Entirely self-released output through Bandcamp. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern; in regard to the suggested/possible deletion of the Voyag3r article. Music articles have been referenced on the page to support stated information. In addition, Voyag3r's albums are released through Bellyache Records and distributed in the US by Light in the Attic Records and in the UK by Deathwaltz Records/Transmission Records. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcm-detroit (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sources to specialized music publications have been added to the article: [20]. --Dereckson (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are referenced and band is released through a record label.
Delete and draft and userfy instead as simply none of the current coverage is solid enough. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this is likely the consensus and the article seems notable and acceptable, unlikely a solid AfD necessity (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Jensen[edit]

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

NN musician. All sources on "him" are actually Allmusic sources on his bands. MSJapan (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, Note 6. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - indeed per note 6 of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 2 § Hurricane dan

The result was procedural close. The proper venue for nominating redirects for deletion is redirects for discussion. I have now moved this discussion to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 2#Hurricane dan. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane dan[edit]

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

G6 and G7 speedy rationales apply (although time isn't of any essence here). Simple redirect to article with the "D" in Dan capitalized (I don't think it's necessary anymore for such redirects to exist...if it still is, then apologies and nevermind about the whole thing). Froglich (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: upon creating this AfD via Twinkle, the system generated the alert tag in the "Hurricane Dan" article, not the "Hurricane dan" one. Don't know what's going on with that, but I moved the tag to the redirect article.--Froglich (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Froglich: Probably TW was redirected to Hurricane Dan. Anyway, redirects are discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion so this should really be taken there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete as unnecessary redirect. However, I really don't see the point of bringing useless but harmless redirects to AfD. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason was that I suspect there's a bug in the code somewhere, as both pages were created simultaneously when I created "Hurricane Dan" (capitalized 'D') -- at least the history of the lower-case 'd' page seems to indicate so. Maybe a new bot would help cleaning up these sorts of duplicate-but-for-case types of articles. (My worry, of course, is that deleting one might delete both...at least in this particular instance, as they seem weirdly linked.)--Froglich (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Morrell[edit]

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

There's some potential claims to notability in the article, but without sources. I'm not finding any coverage whatsoever in sources independent of the subject. I think he fails the notability requirement per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article would pass N(music), but we have serious WP:V issues. I see no content under his real name and am not sure if DJ Smurf is uniquely associated with him. I see a few things from other regions of the country but am not sure it is the same subject. E.g., this and this would contribute to a WP:GNG threshold.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, TOOSOON. Delta13C (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Smith (meteorologist)[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable local TV ~~weatherman~~ meteorologist . Quis separabit? 15:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better notability and he's simply only locally known. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just being a meteorologist at WABC does not make him notable enough for an article. United States Man (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bush and Troy Show[edit]

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

This largely orphaned and uncited article seems to have been written in 2008/2009 as FANCRUFT. A search found various YouTube clips but nothing that would show how this short lived radio show meets the GNG. — Rod ^talk 11:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN topic. No refs in the article. Simply a radio show named after the hosts, and then the hosts change...Szzuk (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems only locally known and unlikely better notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freishia Bomanbehram[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Way too soon, at best. Quis separabit? 02:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bidyadhar Mahanta[edit]

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

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

Comment, whilst perhaps not enough for WP:POLITICIAN, [21] states that he is secretary of the CPI district unit. --Soman (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Forever[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Matthews (politician)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hugh Moran[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete as he's not solidly satisfying the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article appears to be more of an advertisement that anything else. The dude is notable for losing elections, that I did notice. --♥Golf (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred C. Hamilton[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - Not a solidly notable politician. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knifehandchop[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity and Truth Platform Party[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International special awards[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Nobody's paid much attention to this beauty pageant. (Plus it's heightist: you have to be at least 1.8 m tall. Still, this could - barely - be Russell Wilson's pageant, to go with his bird.[22]) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle in Wisconsin[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:NEO, might qualify for WP:A11. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above. Honestly this could get CSDd. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 02:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources fancruft yawn snowball?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. The article title is not neutral if this article were somehow able to survive. Royal broil 18:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable regular season NFL game. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources, which exceeds WP:ROUTINE and is of a continuing nature. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unsourced article about a single, regular-season football game. We generally encourage season article for American football teams, but articles about individual games are discouraged unless there is something truly historic about the game. Not finding that here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just your average run of the mill football game. Needs sources to boot. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Was it a fun game? Sure. Was the Packers losing at Lambeau and getting their streak of winning against Detroit in Green Bay snapped big? Of course. Outside of that streak, this is not really that historic of a game. Assuming this page does somehow manage to survive the AFD, it's going to need a lot of cleanup. NFL is Awesome (ZappaOMati) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICent App[edit]

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

Non-notable app. —teb728 t c 02:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tagged that under WP:A7. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sadly A7 doesn't cover apps. —teb728 t c 04:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Huh. Interesting. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABILITY and nom. MB298 (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned and it's unfortunate this couldn't have been A7 because there's hardly even much here. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irmgard von Stephani[edit]

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

I'm not sure this person is notable enough. Of the three sources here, one is the GRG table E which doesn't actually list her (not a good start), the second is a dead link and the third here doesn't seem like a reliable source (it's actually a copyright violation from Der Spiegel which is a reliable source. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge As usual, I prefer the WP:NOPAGE route where applicable. Apparently there's absolutely nothing to say about his person (notable or not) other than where she was born and where she died. EEng (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Just getting old does not impart notability. Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Black Track at LaPorte Stadium[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Nakon 02:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mamie Rearden[edit]

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

It's not clear whether she is notable or not. The three non-GRG sources here describe her entire notability on the mistaken (at that time) belief that she was the oldest African-American and oldest living American at the time of her death. Now, the GRG 'verified' Weaver's information in July 2014 (see Gertrude_Weaver's page) which is the only detail for the header. I'm not certain that someone who in fact at best the second oldest living American and second oldest living African-American (and I think 4th oldest living person) is really notable based on sources that would almost be WP:ROUTINE if the oldest person had died. She's basically a footnote to Weaver's article it seems. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB298 (talk • contribs)

What? @MB298:, which criteria are you saying this falls under? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge to North American list, per WP:NOPAGE, there being little or nothing worth saying about his uneventful life. 'When asked how it feels being one of the world's oldest living persons, Rearden replied: "I don't know how it makes me feel. I really don't know."' -- oh, brother! EEng (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is WP:EXTREMELY UNNOTEWORTHY --♥Golf (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Notable person, but not much contend for a stand-alone article. Dimadick (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Everything that's notable about this subject can be accommodated by the list. As noted above, all of the rest of the details in the article are routine and trivial. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. David in DC (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States. The coverage that I see/can find for this individual indicates some measure of notability, but not the need for a stand-alone page. Canadian Paul 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the 2nd oldest living American and the oldest person ever from the state of South Carolina have enough notability. Bertha van Hasselt (107, oldest person in the Netherlands for only 4 days) page is should be deleted than this article.----Inception2010 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Per your suggestion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertha van Hasselt. EEng (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you think that. Now, can you provide some policy-based reason that anyone else should think it? This isn't decided by !votes. David in DC (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Manitoba Social Credit Party. Nakon 02:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbert James Tinkler[edit]

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

Virtually unsourced (there is one "Source: Winnipeg Free Press, 6 June 1953" lurking inside the body text, but it lacks the article title and isn't supporting anything noteworthy) biography of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office and the president of a fringe political party's internal orgchart. While the latter could be a valid claim of notability if the article were sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, it doesn't give an inclusion freebie to an unsourced or poorly sourced article just because the person existed — and nothing else here constitutes a reason why an article should be kept either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[23] is this a valid source? Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a straight mirror of our article about the party, so it would be deprecated under WP:CIRCULAR. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all the WP mirrors make searching tough but the sources I found say very little. Redirect to Manitoba Social Credit Party (which is lightly sourced, but most of the content is easily verifiable for their wins and MLAs) where he is named, in context. Consider adding a sentence about his electoral record there. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 01:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Manitoba Social Credit Party. Tinkler was a high-level member of the party and its leading official for a few years. However even the article notes that he "was not a prominent public figure". Dimadick (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. N. C. Menon[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable--part of apromotional campaign alon with the articleo n his company--seethe adjacent afd. The awards are minor, and none of them are reliable for establishing notability : "Bankers Club of Kerala" ; "4th among top 100 Indians in the UAE" . The refs are entirely promotional in content, for what is a rather minor charitable achievement; I presume that;s part of the promotional campaign also. Obvious coi editing. It's time we stopped tolerating it. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear notability.Indian Business Businesspeople, this person is a well known real estate leader in India. Listed on Google Finance & clearly notable as got mentions from recognizable Indian news outlets, also got mentions from Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi

Google Finance
CSR project: Sobha Group’s PNC Menon developing Kerala’s Palakkad region & educating children
Narendra Modi In UAE: I Want To Erase The Deficit Of 34 Years, PM Tells Investors
one of the richest in India & the world $1.28 Billion
PNC Menon, India's most remarkable 'giver'
Forbes The World's Billionaires 2015 RANKING #1429 P.N.C. Menon
Top 15 Middle East-based Indian businessmen honoured by Times Now

--Deepak HM 08:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)comment added by Deepakhmwiki (talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once upon a time I would have said that every billionaire was notable. But he's only no. 1436 in the Forbes list, and no. 91 n India. So that makes everything that shows only that to be a mere notice. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability PNC Menon got nominated for Padma Award - prestigious & the highest civilian award of the country India, also top & richest Indian real-estate leader in Arab world.

26 Nominated for Padma Awards
Top Indian #[leaders in Arab World: UAE residents dominate list PNC Menon of Sobha Group of Companies at No. 7
Revealed: 50 Richest Indians in the GCC 2015 PNC Menon at 8th position

--Deepak HM 11:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Deepakhmwiki

nominated or won? There's quite a difference. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is the most reputed, inspirational & influential person in India & middle east. Hope we have provided enough notable sources here about his bio, achievements, charities, awards. His name is mentioned on Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India site as well. Below are few ref sources along with Google Book search results.

Turning Rs 50 to crores: PNC Menon's success story unveiled

PNC MENON, industrialist and philanthropist, was awarded the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman for social service and numerous charitable projects in India, including a rehabilitation village for tsunami victims.

Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India :Outstanding contributions of Indians and People of Indian Origin in Oman to the strengthening of our bilateral relations have been recognized by the Government of India through Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Awards. The Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Awardees from Oman are: Shri Kanaksi Khimji (2003), Dr. P. Mohamed Ali (2004),P.N.C. Menon (2009), S.K. Virmani (2010), and Kiran Asher (2012).

"Google Book - pnc menon"

--Deepak HM 03:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Deepakhmwiki

Mr. P.N.C. Menon #2 in Oman - Forbes The World's Billionaires 2015 Ranking [24]

--Deepak HM 06:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Deepakhmwiki

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 01:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AfD is not the venue for clean-ups, and the article is in decent state at the moment. For notability, see mainstream media coverage http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Sobha-founder-P-N-C-Menon-commits-half-his-600m-wealth-to-charity/articleshow/18855499.cms , http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/real-estate/sobhas-pnc-menon-honoured/article7382543.ece and http://gulfnews.com/business/property/a-rags-to-riches-developer-s-story-with-a-difference-1.911006 --Soman (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable businessman, decent sourcing. The article could use expansion, but I see no reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 02:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Tucker[edit]

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

award wins not major, significant or notable. Fails GNG and PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Awards given by commercial organizations to promote interest in their own products are not significant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO, has won two AVN awards. MB298 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- MB298 what wins would that be? She has two nominations... PORNBIO is now clear that that nominations and scene awards do not confer notability, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PORNBIO. The Tranny Awards are presented by Grooby Productions, but they are not meant to promote the company's films as insinuated above. They are meant to legitimately honor achievements in the transsexual pornography genre. If the Tranny Awards were meant to promote Grooby Productions, people like Joey Silvera, who has never worked for Grooby Productions and works exclusively for the studio Evil Angel, would not be the recipient of numerous Tranny Awards. In Hazel Tucker's case, she has only done four films for Grooby Productions and won a Tranny Award in 2008, before her first Grooby Productions film in 2009. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - won two Transgender Erotica Awards, complies with WP:PORNBIO--Faigl.ladislav (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 01:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Four awards, relatively decent coverage for a porn actress, and indication that she is notable in her chosen field. Easily passes WP:PORNBIO. Dimadick (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Souman Bose. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kash (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, all mention in references are tangential, no significant coverage of the film BOVINEBOY2008 01:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

Alt:(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)

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

WP:INDAFD: "Puff" "Kash" "Souman Bose" "Subholina Sen"

Redirect to Souman Bose as best option. While this young filmmaker is sourcable,[25] his 2014 film fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on Souman Bose, which actually covers details on the release of the film. Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M Javad Javid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M Javad Javid

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

This person does not have the required notability of a living person to be included in the Wikipedia. The mentioned person has no serious controbution to the knowledge (i.e. highly cited publications) and the claims are misleading. Arashtitan (talk) 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 01:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but without prejudice against recreating if better sources can be found. Iranian academics are a place where we often lack access to sources that could prove notability if it existed; but it is the responsibility of the article authors to provide them. I can't find them here or on the net and don't know where to look. If recreated with sourcing, I wouldn't hold this AfD against it, but for now, delete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Toyota Turns to Telenav for Navigation in Vehicles". Bloomberg.com. 31 July 2015.

[2] "Telenav Copies Foursquare's Swarm With New Social App, HopOver". TechCrunch. AOL. 22 September 2014.

[3] "Scout by Telenav (for iPhone)". PCMAG.

[4] "Scout by Telenav (for Android)". PCMAG.

[5] "Telenav Buys Skobbler For $24M To Power An OpenStreetMap Challenge To Google Maps". TechCrunch. AOL. 30 January 2014.

[6] Wayne Cunningham (7 July 2014). "Scout by Telenav review - CNET". CNET. CBS Interactive.

[7] David Meyer. "Telenav outs Scout app, not to be confused with its other Scout app".

[8] "TeleNav GPS Plus (for iPhone)". PCMAG.

[9] "Hands On With TeleNav Scout in a 2012 Ford Edge". PCMAG.

[10] Joel Evans. "Telenav's Scout is my preferred iOS Maps Alternative". ZDNet.

[11] "TeleNav Introduces Its First GPS Navigation Device". PCWorld. 9 November 2008.

[12] "Proceedings of the Second International Airborne Remote Sensing Conference".

[13] "Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics".

[14] "Christina is 'Top Model of the World' Zambia - Zambia Daily Mail". Zambia Daily Mail.

[15] Sunday Observer

[16] "Pushpika to Make a Dream Debut".

[17] "Yuen proves she's the next top model".

[18] "Baci represents Ghana at the Top Model of the World Pageant".

[19] Abigail O'Leary (16 August 2015). "Aigburth model jetting to Egypt for Top Model of the World competition". Liverpool Echo.

[20] "Jade eyes up model trophy ..."

[21] "Bahamas' Celeste Marshall begins stay in Egypt for Top Model of the World".

[22] "Zimbabwe: Zim in World's Next Top Model Pageant". allAfrica.com.

[23] "Malaika heads for Miss Top Model of the World". News Day.

[24] "Celeste Marshall named first runner-up at Top Model of the World competition". The Nassau Guardian.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]