Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 January	5 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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Games (movie)[edit]

Even with very specific search parameters, I'm not finding very many hits. The only actual websites I could find regarding this film are from unreliable sources such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. This film existed, but does not seem to have become a notable film. As a note, I've spun this off of the original bundled AfD, and only kept the comments pertaining to this show. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: The nominated stub was easy to begin fixing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts for Blood Games:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Blood Games, at least. Here are two reliable-source reviews, and a brief but substantive discussion in an academic work [1][2][3], all found within the first few pages of a simple Google search for <Tanya Rosenberg "Blood Games">. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a lack of BEFORE is sad, we do not judge stub because they have problems, we instead research as did Arxiloxos (good job!), ad judge a topic per available sources even if not used. The article author REALLY needs to better understand MOS:FILM. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But expand with sources. The reception section currently fails NPOV and presents someone's opinion as fact. Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: That issue has been dealt with.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of sources given now that have shown notability. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Vow to Kill[edit]

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

Even with very specific search parameters, "a vow to kill" has significantly more hits than it's capitalised counterpart. The only actual websites I could find regarding this film are from unreliable sources such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. This film existed, but does not seem to have become a notable film. While I appreciate the creator's enthusiasm for creating new articles on Wikipedia, I highly recommend they read through the notability guidelines before starting more articles. As a note, I've spun this off of the original bundled AfD, and only kept the comments pertaining to this show. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominated stub was easy to begin fixing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts for A Vow to Kill:

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

star:(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak keep for A Vow to Kill based on a full Variety review [4], a brief but substantive review in VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever[5], and a pricelessly succinct ("stupid and sexist") review in the Chicago Sun-Times [6]. If more turns up I will remove the "weak" from my !vote. Note: The search links are appreciated but some of them are malformed, requiring the title and the name of a person to occur as a single phrase and in a specific order. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp per notability easy to establish. A lack of BEFORE is sad, and the article author really needs to understand MOS:FILM. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alwanthulukkapatti[edit]

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

Notability, no citation from sources Ninney (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be a settlement recognized by the Indian (or Tamil Nadu) governments. The article mentions a main village of Kuthapanchan; a village of Kuthapanjan (probably merely a Latinization variant, census village code 642812) does exist in the district, but this article is about not that village. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as this is another classic case of a India geography article subject started but with not even the basic formatting, my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not even sure what this article is about: a region, a province, a neighborhood? Searches on all the engines only turned up links to this wiki stub. Fails WP:GEO and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard, CSD A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio EX-S20[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no sources, and no useful content. Why is this one special? BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 22:47, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio PV-100[edit]

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

Information already exists in Pocket Viewer, why is this one special? The article contains only specifications and the only source is the manual. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 22:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nevermind the fact that this is not a place for the collection of speccs and point by point features WP:INDISCRIMINATE this article has little to no Notability WP:GNG. Andrdema (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely a better solid separate article. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio Super Picky Talk[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no sources. Basically a product description. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 22:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely a better solid separate article as mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. Source searches are not providing significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hill (artist)[edit]

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

Appears to not meet WP:NBIO. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a policy-based argument, but the article deserves to be deleted just on merits of the subject's "art" ( http://paintwithkevin.com/kevin-hill-gallery.html ). No such user (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... after some research, delete. The sources in the article are about everything that is out there. The subject has a YouTube channel whose contents are re-broadcast at Arkansas Educational Television Network. He's self-taught (obviously). No other major appearances in media, no critical assessment of his work (thank God). Note that there are two other Kevin Hills in the painting world: an Australian gallerist, http://kevinhillstopten.com.au/ and a Californian painter, http://www.painterkevin.com/. No such user (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of this suggests a convincingly better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Fails WP:ARTIST. I couldn't find any sources. Mduvekot (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Henry Campbell Russell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Only notability is inherited from others such as her husband William Russell and her brother Patrick Henry. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The subject is described in one of the cited sources as of great influence in the history of U.S. Methodism through her sponsorship and fostering of the nascent movement (circuit riders, etc.). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably tag for improvement, especially for better sourcing of her Methodist leadership role at the period of that denomination's rapid growth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and encourage the nominator to follow the guidance in WP:BEFORE in the future. Numerous additional sources are easily found for the article subject. Some examples: Saltville by Jeffrey C. Weaver; "Elizabeth Henry Campbell Russell: Champion of Faith in the Early Republic" by John Kukla, in Virginia Women: Their Lives and Times--Volume 1; Taking Heaven by Storm: Methodism and the Rise of Popular Christianity in America, 1998. 28bytes (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I would've closed as such as this is likely to have better available sources as noted, being a history subject. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As a pioneer of Methodism in a region she is clearly notable in her own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan MacLeod Timeline:1592-1691[edit]

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

Completely uncited and presented in an in-universe non-encyclopedic style. Flagged with issues for 9+ years without any improvement. This fictional character already has a sizable article which presents this information in a more appropriate manner.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsteffel (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This belongs on Wikia. Per WP:NOTPLOT, plot-only summaries of works do not belong on Wikipedia. This is also redundant to the episode plot summaries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all timelines as WP:FANCRUFT best left to Wikia or succinctly summarized in respective movie articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is unlikely a better solid separate article. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - pure fancraft. Above editors have it right, belongs on Wikia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Curtis (financial advisor)[edit]

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

Can't find any solid references about the subject. Of those available in the article, two are dead links, one's behind a paywall and one's a corporate site. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing at all to suggest a better applicably notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are actually "solid" references about him; Wall Street Journal, Forbes, etc., but nothing that is in depth to satisfy WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Wellington Stewart[edit]

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

Notability; the article does not cite any sources. Ninney (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability; the article now appears to cite sources and provide reference links. User:Greyhound48

Delete Fails WP:GNG one of many non notable financial advisors with J.P. Morgan. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two passing mentions in refs, but no sign of the significant coverage required to demonstrate notability. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest a better solid notable article yet, draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The American Militant Nationalist Manifesto[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The prod rationale was "Self-published book, only review published on authors' own site. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK." and I agree with that assessment. I cannot find a single mention of the book in any reliable source. bonadea contributions talk 21:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no coverage that isn't directly related to the book, fails WP:GNG. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as original PRODder. No independent coverage. A comment on the talk page promises two more reviews, but given the extreme fringyness of this book and its authors/publishers, it is unlikely that these will be independent reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There is no evidence to suggest that the reviewer, Richard Noegel,is not independent just because his review was copied and pasted onto the author's site from another site. This mistake in use of sources has been addressed so that the citation comes from the original publication source. It is also noted that Richard Noegel is retired from academia, an accomplished writer/editor, and a very reliable source that has authored multiple reviews. The original PRODder's accusation of "extreme fringyness" of authors/book/publisher is made without any genuine substance being presented. Vandal Brothers LLC is a legitimate publishing company in good standing, and the authors hold legitimate graduate degrees from a renowned university. Faustianvoid (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the review was "independent" because the reviewer posted it on Amazon? (As an aside, note that just copying it to your own website is a violation of Amazon's copyright). As for the fringe remark, I am aware that the political debate in the US is more, let's say, "robust" than in most other civilized countries. Call me crazy, but on their website these authors claim that the GOP has "been coopted by liberal elites who wish to see the true American people robbed of their birthright", claim that US presidents are "chosen by a mob of idiots", call the current US president a "traitorous swine", and call for democracy to be abolished ("Who Cares about democracy!"), so, yes, I call that "fringe" thinking. --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing suggests this can become even a minimally better article. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 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 Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leiba Koniuchowsky[edit]

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

Article focuses much about Survivors testimonies and not about the said person. Also, the article does not cite any sources. Ninney (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if only as containing "excessively long copyrighted excerpts" in violation of WP:NFC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teb728 (talk • contribs) 2016-01-05T14:52:50?
Speedy delete. It's not clear what the article is about, but even if the subject is notable, the article is 99% composed of a lenghty quotation (copypaste) of copyrighted text; that qualifies for speedy deletion on legal grounds. Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO (even though all the prose lifted from the Yad Vashem website was put in quotes). There's no point to this page, it's not referenced, and it's not formatted correctly. Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austenasia[edit]

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

Not Notable, Wikipedia is not for hobby projects Secretpolice101 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ~~As far as I am aware, being a micronation meets WP:GNG.~~ --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my former comment to be inaccurate, but I would say to keep this article as there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources, such as in the "News" results. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~, for the love of my sanity, not this again. See previous 3 AfDs. Isn't there some kind of policy against creating a new AfD for an article on an already-rejected rationale without a substantial justification for why the reason might now be valid when it previously wasn't? Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 13:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, scratch that, speedy keep. I feel #2b applies (this user account has done nothing but nominate Austenasia for deletion, seems like someone with a gripe, if not a sock?), also #2c (2012 isn't recent, but since notability once established can't be lost, it seems like a reasonable fit). Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 13:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Enough sources that passes WP:GNG, one of the notable micronations out of the category. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - More than enough sources to count as notable; furthermore, all three previous deletion nominations have resulted in the decision to keep, and nothing has changed since the last of them was decided on. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All Hail Me. I've self declared myself as Emperor of the Universe. Expecting Keep see you all at the next AFD :) Szzuk (talk) 15:21, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Watchdog[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB notability guidelines. Trivial mention in external literature without serious coverage of the website itself. Watchdog.org is the proper article, and this is not a legitimate WP:CFORK. jps (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing here that does not belong in either Watchdog.org or else in Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. No case is made, or can be made as far as I can tell, for the notability of this website, even locally in Wisconsin. ((Full disclosure: I am a proud Wisconsinite and deeply despise everything this website and the groups it is affiliated with have done to ruin my beloved home state. That has nothing to do with my opinion on this AfD.)) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -the topic isn't even really worth mentioning on the Watchdog.org article, also worth mentioning that not only is it not notable, but it doesn't even focus on the organization's history or anything that would make it significant, it just talks about trivial activities Burroughs'10 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also draft and userfy if needed as I actually found several links at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam it seems but perhaps not better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declan McAvoy[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. The subject fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league. That list is here. Only the top 2 divisions of Scottish football are fully professional and Alloa were at the third level when he played. The Maltese league is also not fully professional and the clubs he's played for from 2012 on are all non-league clubs. Valenciano (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Valenciano (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 20:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Although the prod remover claims that he has "played in 3 professional leagues", this isn't actually true. I suggest they familiarise themselves with WP:FPL. Number 5 7 10:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:09, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zauber[edit]

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

Small software company with no notablility visible and no meaningful edits since the articles inception in 2009. S.K. (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found no reliable coverage. --Human3015^TALK 19:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as the best I found were the expected links at Books and browsers. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, thanks Dharmadhyaksha--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chhalia (1973 film)[edit]

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

The film can very well be notable, but the article does not cite a single reliable source Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:17, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Stul[edit]

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

I have serious doubts whether 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 (biographies) requirement. All coverage (here's best: [7]) is related to her winning the 2015 Australian EY (Ernst & Young) Entrepreneur Of The Year Award. Everything else is in passing. So, first strike is WP:ONEEVENT. Regarding the award itself, it's a national award, that I don't think would be notable on its own and therefore is unlikely to be sufficient to give the winner notability on their own. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Manny Stul has won two awards for 2015 Australian Entrepreneur Of The Year and 2015 National Industry category winner. (Noted here: [8])Susangrigg1 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, suffers from 1EVENT. Delta13C (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, unlikely better notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately Manny does not meet wikipedia notability requirements. Ernst & Young Australian Entrepreneur of the Year and coverage of such in addition to his personal activities and background is not sufficient, and I could not find grounds to meet the notability requirements. However, I notice most of the encyclopaedic content exists in the Moose Toys article anyways. I've made an effort to migrate across the references missing. Aeonx (talk) 10:43, 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criterion G5. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 17:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nimra Khan[edit]

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

Biography of actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR. She has had minor roles in a few TV series, and the sources are one primary source (pkmart.pk) and one entry in a gossip column at showbizpak.com (which doesn't even support the information where it's inserted.) May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. bonadea contributions talk 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was created by a sock of a blocked user, I've tagged it for speedy deletion, so this AfD was a bit redundant. --bonadea contributions talk 16:58, 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 speedy delete per WP:G12. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread Industrial Supplies[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable company. Google search for "Widespread Industrial Supplies" gives <100 hits. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Woodruff[edit]

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

Nomination was withdrawn due to a lack of interest of other users; an unregistered user has expressed interest in pursuing the deletion further. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[original nomination reason, withdrawn:] This white hat hacker has had a little bit of local news coverage, and there is a possibility that he may get more in the future, but otherwise it's a bit too soon for an article, and I'm not sure where I'd redirect to. It doesn't help that IPs are falling over themselves to remove content without citing actual policies, so an AfD sounds like the best answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of references on this article link to throw away statements, with no backing or proof of the claims indicated. With claims such as these (especially regarding the November 2015 Paris attacks) there is no validation, so they should be rejected as an assertion of fact. There is little/no evidence of the individuals actual abilities as a hacker, at best the individual could be referred to as a conference entertainer or a basic confidence trickster/con artist. If this is the case, the individual is not noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedic entry. Finally, It appears that this article has been created with the sole purpose of promoting the individual and their business, evidenced by the fact that the URL goes to a company webpage, and not a page relating to the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.95.108 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low-level hacker without adequate sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 24 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 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nominator, all references are low quality linking to things that the individual states they have done, with no evidence that they have actually done it, nothing referenced stands up to much scrutiny. Also, Im not sure an Events section in a biography is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.67.39 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2016‎
Delete I have to agree with the nominator, he's a bit of a helmet and this page only exists to make his business look legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.115.26 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 6 January 2016‎

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Velevski[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment - Delete as per above. Comment is that the creator blanked this AfD. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not notable, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 16:11, 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Jarrett Webb[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN to me, and there is no other claim od significance. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, au contraire, members of state legislatures are notable per WP:POLITICIAN. --Soman (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Clear pass under WP:POLITICIAN. Here is an AP obituary from a 1943 newspaper. [9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:POLITICIAN clearly states: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. -- Natwebb (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not to pile on, but he is notable under WP:POLITICIAN for holding statewide office (Virginia General Assembly).--Mojo Hand (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that the article wasn't in great shape at the time of nomination, but (a) it's been improved since then, and (b) a person who held a seat in a state legislature is always notable per WP:NPOL. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Per everyone above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:10, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilis (musician)[edit]

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

Subject lacks adequate notability. Only one of the four references included here even mentions him, and then only as a musical credit for a video game (i.e., WP:TRIVIALMENTION coverage only). Could find no reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:PERSON, or WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 14:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than one The Wire article at Books and the article has certainly existed enough time for even the minimalist improvements. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the record, one of the other sources in the article does mention him, but under his actual name of Skylar McGothlin. Still, I'm not seeing any real notability here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:33, 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. Sandstein 07:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Israel[edit]

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

dab page with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC History of Israel#Ottoman_rule_(1517–1920) and no other valid entries (or arguably one more per current dab). In either case, dab fails WP:TWODABS . Recommend Redirect: to the PRIMARYTOPIC and any Disambiguation hatnote / Further info / See also done there per my argument at Talk:Ottoman Palestine Widefox; talk 14:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping editors User:Chesdovi User:Debresser User:Al Ameer son User:Greyshark09 User:Midas02 User:Bkonrad User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman.
See also A similar dab is Ottoman Palestine, which is AfDed separately as combining dabs is sub-optimal. Widefox; talk 14:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep 1. Consensus to have this page, and to have it as a disambiguation page specifically, was established on Talk:Ottoman Palestine. 2. There is an active discussion there about if this disambiguation page can be improved, without deletion being an option, at least till this redhead nominator started bulldozing into the discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion proper has been addressed on Talk:Ottoman Palestine, since that is where the discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS / consensus changes. WP:TWODABS is unanswered, this is not a vote, but a WP:CLUE. Three dab project editors have voiced concerns (about the similar dab at the talk and project). Arguments not based on guideline/policy have little weight. Widefox; talk 15:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns are being addressed there. Deletion is not on the table, and this proposal is detrimental to the consensus forming there. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TWODABS has not be addressed, so deletion is on the table here as it fails (which ignored at the talk). This allows wider participation too. Disambiguation is not what you think it is. Widefox; talk 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I answered the dab project note over "an aggressive editor". Behavioural aspects of this should be addressed on their page Debresser and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Debresser_.28relist.29 Widefox; talk 17:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review also the discussion at Ottoman Palestine, which edit warrior Widefox is trying to circumvent against wide participation there. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete not really a disambiguation page. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Israel did not exist as a state during the Ottoman period. Note that the word Israel does not appear at all in Ottoman Syria. This makes as much sense as British United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Clarityfriend --Midas02 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No such place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - should stay as is. Ottoman Lebanon redirect also exists, though obviously there was no Lebanese state at the time; same with Ottoman Iraq.GreyShark (dibra) 17:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that Lebanon was a recognised place in Ottoman times, whereas Israel was not. It was called Palestine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark09, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a powerful argument in deletion discussions generally. But going along with it, by that logic, they are all primary topics but this isn't. We don't make primary topics or dabs by looking at other dabs either, but those examples aren't even the same as this dab. Widefox; talk 03:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Israel#Ottoman_rule_(1517–1920) as was done for Lebanon, little other possibility for disambiguation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The state, nation, country, or notion of Israel didn't exist during the Ottoman Empire, moreover the Jews that lived in Palestine didn't employ the national designation "Israeli'. George Al-Shami (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same correct for Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 09:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are Doing it again. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Considering the argument "if Lebanon can have one why can't Israel", unlike Israel, the Ottoman archives, and those of the Powers mention the Lebanon and its inhabitants for whom a special form of governance was "invented" (double qaimaqamate and later mutasarrifate). The nation of Lebanon was a direct successor of the Ottoman rule and and product of the national identity that was present long before the birth of the state. The same cannot be said about Israel which was only created in 1948, and before that the people of the region identified as Palestinians. Sadly the original inhabitants and their villages were supplanted by colons and colonies of migrants ... you know the rest of the this. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are only two entries in this page. (c.f. WP:2DAB.) One is a very weak form of partial title match. I have no comments on the other. No prejudice against a proper a redirection. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Match outcome for similar Palestine item. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is closed before that one, should the closer understand that as "consensus for redirect/delete"? (my reading of the unclosed AfD) Widefox; talk 21:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, if anything, unambiguously (pun intended). Deletion is not in the air there. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was a question to Peterkingiron. Widefox; talk 23:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His answer was clear: as consensus there is. Consensus there is redirect. Further questions and whom they are addressed at is irrelevant. Nuf said. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 12 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Mountbatten[edit]

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

Not in any way notable: WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd speedy this, but there are always people who consider that having some thin relationship to the Windsors makes somebody notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates she is notable enough for a mention in an encyclopedia, never mind an article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Delete - insignificant minor royal with next to no independent secondary coverage. JMWt (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely WP:SNOWBALL. in fact, this is so absurd that I wonder if it is WP:POINTY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Article can be recreated if subject has some achievements in future or becomes notable by marrying a higher ranking member of the royal family. --Artene50 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This young person is rather far removed from her more notable ancestors, and is already named in her father's wikiarticle. She is merely a distant collateral relative of the Royal Family, not a member of it. So for reasons given above by previous posters, there's no need for a separate article on her until she becomes notable in her own right. Textorus (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not WP:INHERITED. –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era. Sandstein 07:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Palestine[edit]

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

dab page with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC History of Palestine#Ottoman_era and no other valid entries (or arguably one more per talk page). In either case, dab fails WP:TWODABS . Recommend Redirect: reverting back to redirect to the PRIMARYTOPIC and any Disambiguation hatnote / Further info / See also done there per my argument at Talk:Ottoman Palestine. This dab was created without fixing incoming per WP:FIXDABLINKS. Instead of fixing, we can just revert this mess and dab at target per my talk. Widefox; talk 14:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping editors User:Chesdovi User:Debresser User:Al Ameer son User:Greyshark09 User:Midas02 User:Bkonrad. Widefox; talk 14:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also A similar dab is Ottoman Israel, which I will AfD separately as combining dabs is sub-optimal. Widefox; talk 14:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep 1. Consensus to have this page, and to have it as a disambiguation page specifically, was established on Talk:Ottoman Palestine. 2. There is an active discussion there about if this disambiguation page can be improved, without deletion being an option, at least till this redhead nominator started bulldozing into the discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion proper has been addressed on Talk:Ottoman Palestine, since that is where the discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS / consensus changes. WP:TWODABS is unanswered, this is not a vote, but a WP:CLUE. Three dab project editors have voiced concerns.

Note to closer I answered the dab project note over "an aggressive editor". Behavioural aspects of this should be addressed on their page Debresser and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Debresser_.28relist.29. Widefox; talk 14:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete not really a disambiguation page. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Please review also the discussion at Ottoman Palestine, which edit warrior Widefox is trying to circumvent against wide participation there. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FFS people. Stop edit warring over this and please remember that 3RR us not the only way to get blocked for edit warring. The simple fact neither of you can let this go shows you both need to take a long step back. At this point you are both wrong no matter who has policy on their side. Jbh ^Talk 14:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era. There is nothing ambiguous about the title. There is only one Palestine, and it has only been under Ottoman rule once. So no ambiguity whatsoever, and described in the Ottoman period section of the Palestine article. --Midas02 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midas02: I'm not completely against this proposal, but don't you think History of Palestine#Ottoman era would be a better link to redirect to than Palestine#Ottoman era, which is basically a brief summary of the former? --Al Ameer (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I had forgotten the 'History of' bit. --Midas02 (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity is whether Ottoman Palestine refers to what happpened in the country during Ottoman rule, or the administrative division of the Ottoman Empire. Debresser (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Which is an moot argument, as it has a clear PRIMARYTOPIC. Once the consensus of that primary topic is acknowledged, that leaves the more subtle issue of a potential WP:RELATED hatnote at the primary topic. WP:TWODABS means no dab is needed anyhow, so this is moot / offtopic here. Widefox; talk 09:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and think that none of these two is primary. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you believe is irrelevant. What everyone else in this discussion except for you understands is that in a WP:TWODABS situation, you must provide evidence to support the belief that there is no primary topic, and furthermore you must demonstrate that the topics are unrelated in order for WP:DABCONCEPT to not apply. As it happens, I fixed hundreds of incoming links to this title, and every single one referred to the Ottoman era in the history of Palestine, so I find the case for primacy pretty compelling, and the case for ambiguity nonexistent. bd2412 T 15:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating a belief without reasoning is not a basis for removing the status quo of the primary topic - there's no weight per guideline/policy so per BD2412 is a weak argument considering the obvious primary topic to the contrary due to 1. status quo 2. consensus, and 3. links. It is irrelevant. Widefox; talk 01:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: there's really only one thing that can be called "Ottoman Palestine", so there's no need for a disambiguation page. --Carnildo (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity is whether Ottoman Palestine refers to what happened in the country during Ottoman rule, or the administrative division of the Ottoman Empire. Debresser (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era. Along with Debresser, I had supported the current dab situation as a temporary solution because we entered into a deadlock of sorts at the talk page. I have been insisting from the beginning that the only logical solution was to redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era because this is obviously what "Ottoman Palestine" is referring to and the most likely destination sought by the reader who types "Ottoman Palestine" into the search bar. Redirecting an article about the region of Palestine to an article about the region of Syria is like redirecting Upper Egypt to Egypt; yes Palestine was part of the larger region of Syria during the Ottoman era, but why should we redirect to Ottoman Syria when there's a huge amount of information about the Ottoman period in Palestine in the History of Palestine article and virtually none in the Ottoman Syria article. It defies common sense. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era. Having a disambiguation page at this title creates a false sense that there is a formally recognized lack of primary meaning to these terms. bd2412 T 13:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambig - it is useful to both direct to History of Palestine in Ottoman era and to the summary on Ottoman provinces covering the Levant at the time (Ottoman Syria).GreyShark (dibra) 17:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That ignores the fact that Ottoman Palestine obviously refers to the History of Palestine during Ottoman rule, thus making it the primary topic. Ottoman Syria is secondary if anything and like others have suggested above, could be tacked on as a hatnote of the History section. In fact, "Ottoman Syria" barely discusses the History of [greater] Syria under Ottoman rule let alone Palestine or Lebanon and should probably be renamed "Administrative divisions of Ottoman Syria" or something similar because that's currently what the article is: a list of Ottoman administrative divisions of the region extending from Aleppo to Aqaba. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greyshark09 The recent removal of the obvious primary topic is contested and can be reverted as such, with that underlined by the consensus here for that status quo. Consensus for removing the primary topic is needed, and an argument based on guideline or something may be more persuasive than being based on "useful" - see WP:USEFUL. A primary topic being a primary topic is useful, and removing it is the opposite. Widefox; talk 01:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect like the Israel one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: Just to clarify, do you mean to redirect to "History of Palestine#Ottoman era"? Ottoman Israel is currently a dab page like Ottoman Palestine is currently. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Better stated: as was nominated and I supported in the AfD for the Israel one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are only two entries in this page. (c.f. WP:2DAB.) One is a very weak form of partial title match. I have no comments on the other. No prejudice against a proper redirection. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- A common solution would be to redirect to Palestine, with a "see also" hatnote to the other one; that is probably be best solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Wouldn't it be better to redirect to History of Palestine specifically instead of Palestine since the former thoroughly discusses the Ottoman period in Palestine? --Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any redirect should obviously be to History of Palestine#Ottoman era, the first link in the present disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman_era per PRIMARYTOPIC and place any appropriate hat notes. Jbh ^Talk 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DWFA[edit]

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

The radio station does not meet GNG. The PROD was contested without a reason by the article's creator whose only basis for its existence is a Facebook page. Sixth o f March 13:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best if there's no better available article as radio stations are actually often kept as there are local subjects of interests as with geographic villages, but this is likely best deleted for now until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 121.54.54.168 (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard Wrestling[edit]

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

Unsourced article without a credible claim to notability. Speedied this, but somebody removed the template without any explanation. TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, total hoax article, Should be speedily deleted. MPJ -US 11:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No such company exist, how did it even get accepted anyways?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CCN Digital[edit]

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

No independent verifiable sources. First version was already tagged with {{when}} from Nov 2015 - obviously copied but I've not found the source. Author de-prodded while logged out and only addressing one of three issues. Bazj (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author is currently using sock & IP to blank & request deletion. May be after a blank slate so he/she can recreate it in a shorter timeframe. Suggest/request WP:SALT. Bazj (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - barely referenced with no verifiable notability per WP:CORP. All sorts of unreferenced claims made about being the first at this, the biggest at that. Only three poor quality references given, one of which is about a completely separate company. No significant coverage online in English from WP:RS. Some might exist in Bengali. NeemNarduni2 - 14:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete for now at best until a better article is available, as my searches found nothing considerably better. SwisterTwister talk 23:37, 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. Deleting both. MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Moyal[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. References are primary only. A similar situation to a recent AfD for a closely related subject Peter Rehse (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete both The only references for either of them are from their own organizations. Both lack the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither has the significant independent coverage required by the GNG. Jakejr (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and others. Delta13C (talk) 16:06, 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 redirect to Nepal women's national football team. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal women's national under-23 football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also a lack of references and there doesn't seem to be any sources that there is any official women's under-23 tournament in Asia. The references that are given doesn't mention anything about a supposed women's under-23 team. Ironically, one of the sources for the fixtures is FIFA's fixture & results page which only lists senior teamand for age group FIFA tournaments. InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important and emerging Asiad/South Asiad women's team which will participate in the upcoming 2016 South Asian Games. As for GNG, it has been widely cited through local and international press coverage, check the sources on the page. Do not misuse Wikipedia, you know exactly what you're doing. Ayoopdog (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There still isn't anything in the sources that say it was the women's under-23's! Women's football at the SAG is a SENIOR competition, not an age group (U-23) competition like it is for men! Again, you even cited FIFA's fixture list for the fixtures/results section of the article. Those are SENIOR fixtures not U-23! There is no notability for a supposed Nepali women's U-23 squad!It looks like you've confused the RSSSF file which states that "all other teams are U-23" under the men's tournament also being for the women which is incorrect. Everything you've put in this article should be in the senior team article(Nepal women's national football team). InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and improve While the articles in the Nepal women's u-23 team might not be notable, it doesn't mean the article is not. Many official competitions and tournaments are only available to u-23 sides, so it's more than likely the Nepal women's u-23 team took part in some of those. However I do agree that the references in this article should be improved, as a large part just seem to be copied from the senior women's team article. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does your fist sentence even mean?? It doesn't make sense! There is no Nepal under-23 women's team! Your second sentence, not for women's football and saying that "it's more than likely" is obviously not definitive. Either you provide sources saying that there was/is a Nepal women's U-23 team or if not, then it's clear there isn't! Everything that is on the page should be in the SENIOR team's article! The women's football tournament at the 2010 SAG for example was a senior tournament. Saying that Nepal officially competed with their U-23's is false and none of the source back it up. For the upcoming SAG, not even the ANFA report about the finalized women's squad mention that it's the U-23's. InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nepal women's national football team, no evidence this team has actually competed yet, though might do in the future. Giant Snowman 17:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence. It says on the RSSSF source cited: "India enter with their U-19 team; the other sides are U-23 teams." Ayoopdog (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have said... you're confused! That note about "India enter with their U-19 team; the other sides are U-23 teams." is for the men's tournament only!!! As I've also said, you've even used FIFA fixtures/results page as a source for this supposed U-23 team's fixture list but that those are full 'A' matches not U-23's! You even created a competitive records section which includes Asian Games and Olympics but women's football at those events has always been and still is for senior teams! Very ironic! There shouldn't even be a redirect. That would suggest that there was/is a Nepali women's U-23 or some notion of it but there wasn't enough info for it to have it's own page. InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would have to agree with GiantSnowman here and go for redirect to Nepal women's national football team as there is no evidence that this team has ever competed (or actually existed) when looking through all of the references and searching for the team. The RSSSF source for South Asian Games say U-23, but that is for the men's tournament and not for womens (and it is under header for mens tournament). Just like the olympic games the mens tournament is for youth teams and womens tournament for senior teams. Qed237 (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that clown (InternacionalFutbolista). I've just spoken to the digital comms manager at ANFA and he can confirm that the women's team going to the 2016 SAG is a U-23 side with 3 senior team players. Proof: http://i.imgur.com/5gbj27V.png. An official confirmation will be up on the official site/match report signed by the match commissioner soon. Ayoopdog (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayoopdog: Please stop calling other editors names and I am sorry but that image does not say anything (cut at the wrong place?). Anyway until it is confirmed and well sourced that the team exists it should not have it's own article. Qed237 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayoopdog, that's the only thing your half good at, name calling! You call me a clown but this is coming from the same guy who creates a women's U-23 national team page and then creates a tournaments records section which includes the Olympics and Asian Games! lol! Same thing for the fixtures list and then citing FIFA's fixtures list as if FIFA's fixture list includes women's U-23 matches! lol! InternacionalFutbolista (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: What GS said. Also, FFS, on the imgur link. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:04, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Italicum[edit]

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

Article on a minor journal, created by an employee of the publishers, with no reliable independent sources. The "references" are merely index descriptors. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~I'm not sure if this fails WP:NJOURNALS~~, which explains that "[t]he most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major citation indices". According to the journal's website, it is indexed by several major indexing services, including SCOPUS (which is specifically mentioned by WP:NJOURNALS as an example of a major citation index). ~~I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails WP:NJournals~~. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals; I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indexed in three selective databases in the sense of WP:NJournals (and if you check the journal homepage, there are others, like Current Contents). Article needs cleanup though. --Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Peace Research[edit]

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

Article on a minor journal, created by an employee of the publishers, with no reliable independent sources. The "references" are merely index descriptors. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~I'm not sure if this fails~~ WP:NJOURNALS, which explains that "having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1". Here, Journal Citation Reports gives this journal an impact factor of 3.387. Also, this journal seems to be abstracted/indexed in significant databases. ~~I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails WP:NJournals.~~ -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals; I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sizeable impact factor, indexed in multiple selective databases, clear pass of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Action Research (journal)[edit]

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

Article on a minor journal, created by an employee of the publishers, with no reliable independent sources. The "reference" is merely an index descriptor. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~I'm not sure if this fails WP:NJOURNALS~~, which explains that "having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1". Here, Journal Citation Reports gives this journal an impact factor of 0.815. Also, this journal seems to be abstracted/indexed in significant databases. ~~I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails WP:NJournals.~~ -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals; I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:NJournals, see my comments at other similar AfDs. --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and Labour Relations Review[edit]

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

Article on a minor journal, created by an employee of the publishers, with no reliable independent sources. The "references" are merely index descriptors. Very low impact factor. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~I'm not sure if this fails WP:NJOURNALS~~, which explains that "having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1". Here, Journal Citation Reports gives this journal an impact factor of 0.328. Also, this journal seems to be abstracted/indexed in significant databases. ~~I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails WP:NJournals.~~ -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals; I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:NJournals, see my comments at other similar AfDs. --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 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. (non-admin closure) ––Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Risk[edit]

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

Article on a minor journal, created by an employee of the publishers, with no reliable independent sources. The "references" are merely index descriptors. Not PubMed indexed, no impact factor. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~I'm not sure if this fails WP:NJOURNALS~~, which explains that "[t]he most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major citation indices". According to the journal's website, it is indexed by several major indexing services, including SCOPUS (which is specifically mentioned by WP:NJOURNALS as an example of a major citation index), EBSCO, and ProQuest. ~~I'm leaning toward keeping this, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can show me why this fails WP:NJournals.~~ -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI, though... Guy (Help!) 23:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the relevant inquiry is whether the article passes WP:NJournals, and it looks like this article does pass. If there are problems with with COI or references, these should be resolved by editing the article rather than deleting it (see WP:ATD). I completely agree that COI editors shouldn't add content to articles about journals published by their employers, and I am also troubled by the lack of coverage of this journal in secondary sources, but it still looks like this passes WP:NJournals's notability requirements. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have concluded that this article passes WP:NJournals; I have updated my vote accordingly. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the relevant question is never whether a subject "passes" a subject-specific notability guideline, because those guidelines only tell us what sort of article is likely to get sufficient coverage in independent sources to allow us to write an article compliant with fundamental policy, ie. one whihc can be verified as neutral by reference to reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the Sage articles that I did not get around to cleaning yet. Nevertheless, COI is not a reason for deletion and can easily be addressed (see our journal article writing guide). Indexed in Scopus, which is selective and meets WP:NJournals. As for the COI, it is actually not that difficult to create a neutral article on an academic journal, even for a COI editor. Luke.j.ruby (who apparently is not with Sage anymore or has moved to other responsibilities, as he doesn't edit here any more) was a bit of an exception, but most people working for a publisher see that it is in their best interest to follow WP:JWG, so that articles won't get deleted as spam. I find their contributions generally useful, as it is less work to clean up an article if necessary than creating one from scratch... --Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hobart[edit]

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

Non-notable model/actor. One unsourced extra part in a movie, the rest is commercials. Fails WP:NMODEL. Sjö (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, almost all work is commercials. No reliable refs to be found, but his name is common. Bgwhite (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHY ISN'T THIS A REFERENCE? http://www.acquamodels.com/news/7745 Excuse the caps.Italic text

Added an additional reference - http://www.pen-online.jp/news/info/sirthomaslipton/

ADDED another additional REFERENCE from Cinema A La Carte - http://www.cinemawith-alc.com/2015/09/lipton.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by LilyTiare (talk • contribs)

LilyTiare These are not references. They are just ads. Per WP:GNG, references need to be independent, reliable and the subject receive significant coverage. Bgwhite (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeesh!!! Sir Thomas Lipton (Mark Hobart) is pretty known here in Japan, China, Singapore and a few other Asian countries. I am trying my best to meet wikipedia requirements. And surely do not want the article removed. Been in countless TVCMs, shows and other media for more than a decade. Could you give me one concrete suggestion as to make this meet requirements. Most of what is published is in Japanese. The sir Thomas Lipton King of Teas is a TVCM, but it is also a movie of 3 minute for promotion of the Lipton brand, not an ad. There are both.

I was looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Carver#cite_note-6 and see that a majority of the links do not work, the references no longer exist and the content is at best 6-7 years ago. What makes that article meet requirements.

I am totally open to a suggestion. Based on wiki guidelines, I need just one reference, minimum. Give me a hint.

Much appreciated!

Ho, how can I become a Wiki administrator? ;-)

Delete I concur with the nomination. The article needs independent, reliable sources showing why Mr. Hobart is notable as required by WP:ENT. Unfortunately, it does not do that.Astro4686 (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gursewak Singh[edit]

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

The subject was not notable prior to 2016 Pathankot attack and his death has not made him notable. Victims generally do not have their own article after an attack. WWGB (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even terrorist Ajmal Kasab has his own article. Then why one man who paid his life for one country don't deserve an article? Atrebute PokeFan (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The terrorist meets the notability policy's standard. The serviceman, heroic as he is, does not, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails every notability standard. We do not have articles on every victim of terrorist attacks or serviceman killed in war. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 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 userfy. per user's request below. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mallon[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable individual. It doesn't seem like the YouTube account is notable, the book is notable or the acting is. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mallon I have links to several hundred articles written by me for the publications I listed and while I admit I am certainly no "notable" superstar, in Southeast Asia I am quite a well known journalist, photographer and YouTube personality who has helped countless viewers of my site. My point is just how notable do I need to be to the people around the world? Please let me know anything you think I can or should do to add to the chance of the biography being included in Wikipedia. Thank you.
I will / can add links to at least some of the articles and photographs and other information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottmallon (talk • contribs)

I've searched google news, books and the web and the most extensive mention I've found is this one. We need evidence for your claim that you are well known for anything. YouTube views aren't sufficient, actual independent webpages or something where someone discusses you is what is required. I'll note the COI issues I didn't mention in the nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mallon Please take a look at my Wikipedia page now as I added five references which did not include the Internations interview. If need be I'll add another 25. I understand your concern about COI, but If the page is neutral and a statement of verifiable fact, then there should be no COI. Nor am I attempting to use the page to self-promote.

The answer to your question, Scott, is that you need to be noted in independent secondary sources. If you are interested in the notability criteria of journalists (which seems to be the category this page would fit into), see here: WP:JOURNALIST.

As a general rule, it is considered a WP:COI to be editing a page which is about yourself. For one thing, it is quite hard to see objectively whether or not you have enough independent secondary mentions to be considered notable. And it is very hard to write neutrally about yourself. And it appears that this page has been almost entirely written and edited by yourself.

Leaving the WP:COI aside, I'm not seeing anything significant about you which has not been written by you. So I'm going to say delete. My advice to you is to stick to producing your own content and edit other areas of wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mallon Is it possible to simply put the page as my Userpage? Scott Mallon 06:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Scottmallon: Yes, I moved the page to User:Scottmallon. But, be sure to read WP:UPYES and to edit the page in accordance to that. If the user page is against that guideline, it may be deleted too. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:05, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kuwait Champions Challenge[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Original concerns remain, this is a season article for a competition that at the moment consists of a single friendly match which is not in itself notable. No indication of GNG. Could potentially be notable in the future if sufficient iterations generate significant reliable coverage, but not yet. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted since it's an annual tournament like the Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu plus it's officiated with the Kuwait Football Association. (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2016 (KSA)

Delete - no evidence of notability, we don't need an article for every friendly tournament. Giant Snowman 18:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These types of matches have happened in the past and each and every time they are not notable. They are just one off friendly matches which happen to feature former top stars. Maybe if someone made 2015–16 in Kuwaiti football, it can be added there but that is it. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is simply not notable enough. Qed237 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONT delete - 2015–16 in Kuwaiti football page was created there are many other ref to it being officiated with the kuwait FA User:khalid.s.m.s
- This account was just created, so I question their knowledge of notability guidelines and also possible sock to get more keep votes? Qed237 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONT delete - 2015–16 in Kuwaiti football has been created... and the next edition won't be about former stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid sadeq (talk • contribs) 12:47, 11 January 2016‎

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Champions Challenge[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Original concerns remain, this is a competition that at the moment consists of a single friendly match which is not in itself notable. No indication of GNG. Could potentially be notable in the future if sufficient iterations generate significant reliable coverage, but not yet. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, we don't need an article for every friendly tournament. Giant Snowman 18:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per what Snowman said. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable friendly competition between two XI-teams created just for this match. Qed237 (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DONT delete -Its official only the first edition was between 2 xi friendly teams you should wait on it. User talk:khalid.s.m.s 14:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This account was just created and their first edit was at this discussion, so I question their knowledge of notability guidelines. Qed237 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account also has a username very similar to that of the user who created these articles. Possible WP:SOCK. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DONT delete - same as what khalid.s.m.s said 15:48, 11 January 2016 (KSA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid sadeq (talk • contribs) 12:48, 11 January 2016‎

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

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

The result was no consensus. Renaming and expanding the article to cover the South Bluffs Warehouse Historic District, if desired, may take place as part of the normal editing process. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Bluffs, Memphis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and written like advertisement. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I'm finding some local coverage for events occurring in this unofficial "gated neighborhood"[10], but most are trivial mentions, and there is nothing national or international to make it rise above the many other residential neighborhoods of the world (WP:MILL), and very little direct coverage about the neighborhood itself to meet the "significant coverage" bar of GNG. This and the article's current promotional tone make the subject unfit for an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and rename) per WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized place. Rename to South Bluffs Warehouse Historic District, Memphis. It was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on June 04, 1987. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The South Bluffs Warehouse Historic District is probably notable due to its National Register of Historic Places listing, but I don't think that's what this article is describing. According to the National Register Form, The South Bluffs Warehouse Historic District is an architecturally cohesive collection of late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century warehouses located along the bluff of the Mississippi River to the south of downtown Memphis, Tennessee. The article currently describes a residential neighborhood of houses and apartment complexes in Memphis that also happens to be called South Bluffs—not a collection of historic warehouses. Does the residential neighborhood also have legal recognition to satisfy WP:GEOLAND? Mz7 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is currently about a well defined neighborhood, South Bluffs, which is located in the South Bluffs Warehouse district. I'm suggesting the article be expanded to cover the entire district. Much of what is currently in the article would remain. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In that case, I've struck my delete !vote. Nice find on the Historic Places register. Mz7 (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there are no comments I recommend a user or administrator to close it as no consensus Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:51, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kojo Yankson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I really don't see anything special in traveling within West African countries to report cases of Ebola outbreak. He's only doing his job. Although, this debate was recently closed as "No Consensus" with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 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 08:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable outside of being a small-time radio host. Requires more sources indicating significance. Delta13C (talk) 09:04, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Selby places[edit]

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

Doest not meet WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. A search brings up nothing useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hardly much and I wouldn't even imagine this is best moved to the article itself as there's hardly even much here. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 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 08:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- There's nothing much here that is not already covered at the main article. Reyk _YO! 12:36, 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. A redirect may be made as part of the normal editing process, if desired. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dónal Donnelly[edit]

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

Delete: as hagiography/autobiography/soapbox. Non-notable individual except for one incident, escaping gaol. Delete and possibly redirect name to HM Prison Crumlin Road. Quis separabit? 17:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sure and then redirect if needed even though he's not currently mentioned there as this article simply makes no better signs of a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not sure about Donnelly, but his memoirs might just squeak over the line in article notability stakes. EBSCO lists two reviews here [11] and here [12]. There is another review here (subscription require) [13], and even amazon mentions some snips here [14] (i know they cannot be used for notability:)), but have been unable to substantiate them online, maybe a helpful Irish editor can oblige? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "review" # 3 is from the "Irish Republican News", certainly NOT independent of the subject.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a huge issue that everything "must" be verified through Google. (And Google then verifies everything through Wikipedia! Ha, ha!) --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 06:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I am not convinced that he is so lacking in notability. The article largely arises from a book of memoires, published by what is probably a small Irish publishing house, which does not look to me like a vanity press. That will inevitably present the author's POV, but should not be enough to prevent WP having an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 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 16:36, 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 08:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per SwisterTwister. Snappy (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His book appears to have garnered virtually no attention, and searching for him produces little (there was an actor with the same name) beyond mentions and the fact that he was pardoned in old age at a time when Britain was trying to move past "the troubles" (successfully, for a wonder) and pardons were being given to old terrorists. So, the case for notability boils down to WP:BLP1E: the fact that of all the IRA militants in a particular prison, he was the "only one" to escape. Except that it turns out that a number of prisoners escaped from HM Prison Crumlin Road over the years. His claim to fame is that he was the "only one" to escape between 1956 and 1962. Like, really? I've looked, and all I see is a non-notable terrorist who should be deleted under WP:BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 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. I'd also remind editors participating in AFD not to engage in personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Chemnitz[edit]

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

Was part of a blanket AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, which was closed as no consensus for procedural reasons. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion of this and all similar articles: in Germany, only Autobahn intersections are named - see also my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Additionally, the text of this article says that the subject interchange was previously part of a notable German racing track, the Sachsenring. That is a reason to conclude that this particular interchange is not like thousands of others. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The racetrack-related history can be covered in the racetrack unless there is "significant covered in reliable sources independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) about this interchange. Imzadi 1979 → 19:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - My further researches indicate that the racetrack was actually a standalone facility. There's even a standalone article in German Wikipedia about the racetrack (de:Autobahnschere Chemnitz). That article is linked to a number of reliable sources, including a video of one of the races posted on YouTube by the Chemnitz Film Archive. It goes without saying that those sources also establish notability of the interchange itself. Bahnfrend (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bahnfrend, you should have said, "It goes without saying that those sources also establish notability of the [racetrack] itself". Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The first footnote appears to be a SPS, and the second isn't enough to carry notability. These are both the same sources as in the German version of the article. I agree that we should welcome such attempts, but they have to meet GNG. Non-English subject do not get a deviation from that principle. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: You're confusing notability of the subject matter with verifiability of the content of the article. These are two different issues. In the case of Kreuz Chemnitz, notability can be confirmed by a Google maps search (Google maps is a clearly independent reliable source). If the subject matter is notable, then there can be an article about it. As far as verifiability of content is concerned, a lack of sources and references is a recognised problem with translation of German Wikipedia articles into English, because German Wikipedia articles are typically much less comprehensively sourced and referenced than English Wikipedia articles created from scratch. See Wikipedia:Translation/German/Translation advice#Content issues. The solution to this problem is not to delete the whole article, but, rather, either to be pragmatic and leave the content in the article as is (on the basis that German Wikipedia is generally pretty accurate), or be fundamentalist (and thereby largely defeat the purpose of translating the article in the first place) and delete the unsourced content, but not the whole article. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't use maps alone to establish notability, and I think you need to read WP:GNG. We need "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", and being listed on a map fails the first prong because that would be a mere mention, not "significant coverage". Imzadi 1979 → 06:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response: I disagree, but even if you're correct, your comment indicates only that the English Wikipedia guidelines for notability of roadways are inadequate. See my new thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - First, the discussion mentioned by DGG also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. Second, not sure what Bahnfrend is disagreeing with, since Imzadil is quoting guidelines. But if they feel that English Wikipedia's current guidelines ae "inadequate", they need to bring that up on the talk page of the notability guidelines. Not here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Further response: This is one of a group of disruptive nominations for deletion by a small number of systemically biased editors who have a fixed agenda of wanting all articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany to be deleted, even though they have carried out no research into whether the subjects of the articles pass WP:GNG or not, and are therefore contending that they fail GNG without regard to whether that contention is true or false. For that reason, this nomination, like all disruptive editing, should be treated as vandalism, and should be withdrawn. See also my more detailed comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - simply incorrect. And further evidence that Bahnfrend is lacking in AGF. I've nominated interchange articles from several countries, not simply Germany. It's simply that Germany had a plethora of non-notable interchanges which had articles, which the other countries did not. Their use of the term disruptive is a clear indication they don't have a clear grasp of the concept. If I wanted all interchanges in Germany gone, why did I not nominate all the others I've passed over? Hmmm. An apology seems warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Bahnfriend: please remember that WP:NOTVAND explicitly states that "disruptive editing" is not vandalism. Even if there was disruptive editing here, your assertion is against Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a WP:BIAS issue; the issue here is that in Germany, every interechange on the Autobahn (Interstate/Motorway) is named. Unlike in other countries, therefore, the fact that an interchange is named is not prima facie evidence of notability. There is no evidence here of any disruption, and there is insufficient evidence that WP:GNG is met by this interechange. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Of course it's a WP:BIAS issue. Essentially what the deletionists, including you, are saying amounts to this: "I believe that the standard unnamed cloverleaf interchange near my home town of Nowheresville, USA, is not notable (even though I haven't bothered to research that point), and that therefore the interchange the subject of this article cannot be notable (even though I haven't bothered to research that point either). So this article must be deleted." Such a statement is really no different from "I believe that the nondescript church in my home town of Nowheresville, USA, is not notable (even though I haven't bothered to research that point), and that therefore the subject matter of Dresden Cathedral cannot be notable (even though I haven't bothered to research that point either). So the Dresden Cathedral article must be deleted."

If you can be bothered to visit the Dresden Cathedral article, you will note that it has only one cited source, namely a German language book about the buildings of old Dresden. But no editor of English Wikipedia would ever seriously suggest that that article be deleted. Now let me tell you why the subject matter of Kreuz Chemnitz is notable, apart from the fact that it has a name, and is therefore, like Dresden Cathedral, a large, recognised geographical feature.

Kreuz Chemnitz was opened in 1939, and is, for that reason, one of the oldest interchanges between two or more freeways in Germany and indeed the world. It was constructed as part of the early stages of the Autobahn between Berlin, the capital and most populous city in Germany, and Munich, the capital of Bavaria and third most populous city in Germany. The Reichsautobahn project of which it was part was an important strategic and propaganda exercise by Adolf Hitler (see, eg, Reichsautobahn#Monumental function), and was a major element of his preparations for starting World War II.

Like all German Autobahns built right to this very day, the Berlin to Munich Autobahn was, and its interchanges were, engineered, built, and is/are operated, not just as a mode of transport, but also as a form of landscape architecture, because Germans actually care about things like that. So, for example, as is pointed out in the caption to the very first photo in the Reichsautobahn article, oak trees were deliberately retained in the median of the Berlin to Munich Autobahn when it was built in the 1930s (see also the detailed comments in Reichsautobahn#Aesthetics). Last year, a respected academic architectural writer who lives in Erfurt (150 km (93 mi) from Chemnitz) released a 440 page book Reichsautobahnen in Mitteldeutschland ("Reichsautobahns in Central Germany"), which describes the history of the Reichsautobahn project in that area, including the Berlin to Munich Autobahn, between 1933 and 1943. Some indication of the reliability of this source can be gleaned from the fact that the book was the subject of launch events at a number of important museums in central Germany, including the Museum for Saxon Vehicles in Chemnitz, and that the launch events were reported in reliable local media (eg this article). As Kreuz Chemnitz was one of the most important structures built as part of the Berlin to Munich Autobahn, there can be no doubt that it is described in the book. In any event, so much is clear from one of the online sources I have just cited. Thus, all I would need to do to debunk the deletionists in relation to this particular article (and all other articles about the Reichsautobahn interchanges between two or more Autobahns in central Germany) is add the book and the online sources I have just cited to the references section of the article, which will then become even better sourced than the Dresden Cathedral article. I will do that shortly. (Incidentally, the book is already one of the sources cited in the German Wikipedia Reichsautobahn article, so it is by no means difficult to find.)

But there's actually even more of a basis than that to conclude that the Kreuz Chemnitz article should be kept. In its original form, the interchange was a triangle interchange. Its further development was delayed by the post-War division of Germany, and it is therefore an interesting example of the profound effect of the Cold War on Europe in general and Germany in particular. In the 1950s, the interchange, unlike any other freeway interchange of which I am aware, was used as as a racetrack to stage motorsport events for both cars and motorbikes. Early this century, the authorities decided to transform it into a four way interchange as part of the construction of a new Autobahn from Chemnitz to Leipzig. That decision was then the subject of a major court challenge by nearby landowners, but in a judgment published here and containing detailed information about the local landscape, the Federal Administrative Court of Germany, sitting at its headquarters in Leipzig, dismissed the challenge. Reconstruction of the interchange then went ahead. The court's judgment even notes one of the points I have made above, namely that Autobahn construction in Germany is an exercise in landscape design - the challenge the court rejected was to the acquisition of land for the purpose of landscaping. Consistently with the general philosophy of German Autobahn engineering, the expanded interchange includes an 8 m x 8 m depiction of the Coat of arms of Saxony between the Hof-Dresden slip roads - so large that it is clearly visible here on the satellite version of Google Maps.

The as-yet-uncited material in the previous paragraph was obtained from page 5 of this reliable source, which I will also shortly add to the article.

In the last few days, I have done some detailed research into only three of the German Autobahn interchange articles presently proposed for deletion. My researches have indicated that all three of them are clearly notable to an editor who actually knows something about German Autobahns, and who knows where to look for appropriate reliable sources. So, and contrary to what you say in your systemically biased post, all of the articles about interchanges between two or more German Autobahns should be presumed to be about notable subjects. Now I have a request. Why don't you and your fellow deletionists do English Wikipedia a favour, and confine your editing and comments on deletion proposals to subject matter you actually know something about? That way, you and your fellow deletionists wouldn't be wasting so much of the valuable time of other editors, such as the time that I would otherwise have been devoting to my wife, three children and other family members over these Christmas holidays. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith and not make personal attacks on other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 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 16:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 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 08:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a complete structure of German autobahns in the encyclopedia. We even have separate templates for Dreieck and Kreuz. The German Dreieck's and Kreuz's that are named always connect two Autobahns. This means that any Dreieck or Kreuz is already known to be covered in two other topics already in existence on Wikipedia. This is sufficient to know that there is no policy basis to delete the "topic", also known on Wikipedia as the "subject". I would also argue that these topics satisfy our wp:notability guidelines, but analyzing this point between keep and merge becomes academic, given that there is no policy basis for a deletion discussion. Any decision to redirect or merge can be handled under WP:Editing policy, which might consider more than wp:notability in the decision. Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - none of which addresses the lack of notability of this particular interchange. As per WP:GNG: if the subject of an article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". None of which this article, or interchange, has demonstrated, nor have any of the !votes for "keep" provided evidence of. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these Kreuz's and Dreieck's are a valuable addition to our existing Autobahn coverage, fully supported by our policy. Sorry, but you've been since last August chasing a problem which doesn't exist and driven off a valuable content contributor in so doing. There is a case with some or many of these articles for merging them temporarily to one of the two related Autobahn articles, until the time that Bahnfriend et al has had time to refine them, but because you are on record as rejecting merger, you've not been able to participate in that discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you resort to an uncivil, personal attack, with addressing the lack of notability of the interchange. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my words were not spoken with disrespect. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating does not need to address the notability of this interchange. Its notability is well established by my comments above, complete with links to reliable sources. But at the moment, I do not have the time to add content to this or the other articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, but facts, not comments establish notability. Something which none of the keep !votes have addressed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — The kind of information that's probably better represented with a table and a link to a map. For comparison, British and Irish motorway articles don't have separate articles on individual junctions. Blythwood (talk) 08:09, 13 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) 01:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Garves[edit]

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

Individual does not meet the minimum level of notability required for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALPolitico (talk • contribs)

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:POLITICIAN nor any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As always, a person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election, forthcoming or otherwise — if you cannot provide credible and properly sourced evidence that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. But nothing here suggests any preexisting notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN has not public office is only a candidate and will notable only if he is elected and also fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician, thereby failing the POLITICIAN high bar. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW, and considering the apparent offsite disruption there's no point in prolonging this. Borders on speedy deletion as a hoax, but even if intended to be taken seriously, there is no way that this nonsense is going to be kept. Any established editor with a record of productive contributions may contact me if they know of reliable independent sources covering this topic, and I'll reopen the discussion. Sandstein 17:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Government von Hessen in Exile[edit]

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

In case this spurious claim article is not speedily deleted as a blatant hoax or as made up, it should be deleted as original research. —teb728 t c 07:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced article about a group of unspecified people who are claimed to hold several views clearly inconsistent with easily ascertainable historical facts. Maproom (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is self invented nonsense and not supported by any sources. Even if there really is a family with descent in the female line from the House of Hesse. It's always been understood that the Hesse-Cassel branch had the right to succeed in Hesse-Darmstadt and vice versa. That has nothing to do with the adoption of Landgrave Moritz by his distant cousin of the Darmstadt line back in the 1930's. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX under CSD:G3 Hasteur (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Royal Government of Hessen in Exile" has a website published on Weebly, but aside from that, I couldn't find any sources that substantiate the existence of Terry's claims to the Hessen crown. They also have a Facebook page, where thy announced on December 30, 2015 that they are declaring war on ISIS (I'm not joking ... one Facebook user responded to the post by saying "It is about time that someone will stand up and tried to stop Isis"). This could very well be a hoax, but I don't there is enough information to distinguish this from an obscure, legitimate claim. In any event, the absence of reliable sources about this subject means that deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
information. See also this ANI report Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
information An attempt to canvas on this project page has been set up on Facebook. See here. We might expect some visitors to this project page. I quote: "We are very upset to announce that, our wikipedia page, that had only been uploaded yesterday will not most likely be taken down. This removement was caused by those opposed to the Royal Family. This anti-monarchists purely vandalised the page with explicit content and malicious stories to unsurp the Royal Government von Hessen. Right now, we need your support. I ask of you to go to our wikipedia page and click the "contest deletion" button under page issues. Then locate the talk page and type "do not delete". We are ashamed that ignorant people would tear down the RGVH. Al".Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:18, 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 redirect to Analog observation. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analog_study[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Analog study

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

This page covers the same subject as Analog_observation, only in far less detail. I propose a redirect to said article be put in its place. Kookas (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Analog observation as plausible search term. There in no new material in the shorter article to merge. Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Plausible search term and the concepts appear to be the same. Or, since "Analog study" seems to be more used given the hit numbers and entries on Google Scholar, delete and move Analog observation to this title.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:13, 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. K. Mohamed Ummer[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC. He is just doing his job Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:12, 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 07:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROF seems out of reach but may be inappropriate as a test because it is aimed at university researchers not secondary-school teachers. His highest academic posting is as principal of a non-notable secondary school, not enough for notability by itself, and the article provides none of the independent reliable and in-depth sources needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment David Eppstein may have misread the article. Farook College, where Ummer was employed, is not a secondary school. According to its article, it is a postgraduate education institution, equivalent to a graduate school. Ummer may nor be notable, but he is not a simple teacher. Dimadick (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG .Through I Agree with Dimadick he works in Farook College which is affiliated to the University of Calicut is not a secondary school. But he is just amongst the thousands of English head of department across various colleges in India nothing notable about him.Note he has not even done his PHD or Doctorate as far as I could see and he has done his M.A.English. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:14, 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 deleted by Sandstein per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"200 Great Gay Bars", which was closed as delete, the Denver Wrangler article having been included in that nomination of multiple related pages for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Wrangler[edit]

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

The only indication of notability here is a list of "top 200 gay bars in the world". That's not enough for notability, and so unreliable a source that I listed it as A7, but it was declined. I assume there are some local sources also, but they won't help a local establishment. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't decline it in the strictest sense as I'm not an admin. A7 is not actually about notability; it's about there not being a credible claim of importance, and I'd say being in a "top x number of anything" in a notable magazine is one. Nor did I think it was advertising. I also know an admin did decline an almost identical article. Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. This establishment has been covered by more than just local sources, including The Advocate, Instinct, and National Review. Also, Out is not an unreliable source, contrary to the nominator's comments. This article should be expanded, not deleted. See additional sources:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/11/13/watch-queer-protesters-allege-discrimination-denver-bear-bar
http://instinctmagazine.com/post/denver-gay-bar-found-guilty-not-allowing-entry-drag-queens
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384621/ruling-gay-bear-bar-discriminated-against-effeminate-man-drag-andrew-johnson
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26273670/regulators-denvers-wrangler-bar-discriminated-when-it-turned
http://www.westword.com/location/the-denver-wrangler-5167675
http://www.westword.com/news/vito-marzano-wins-first-battle-against-gay-bear-bar-he-says-is-biased-against-effeminate-men-5902238
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/usa/rocky-mountains/denver/entertainment-nightlife/other/denver-wrangler
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715942/Colorado-Bar-discriminated-against-man-drag.html
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/08/04/colorado-gay-bar-discriminated-against-man-in-drag/
http://www.timeout.com/denver/nightlife/denver-wrangler
http://www.queerty.com/denver-bear-bar-found-guilty-of-discriminating-against-men-in-drag-20140805
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/colorado-bar-discriminated-against-man-in-drag

---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to see the article actually expanded out with the sources found by Another Believer before a judgment is made. As-written, I'd agree with nom, but the article may have unseen possibilities. Lithorien (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see an expanded article looking somewhat similar to Three Sisters Tavern, which has been promoted to Good status. This article is short, but offers a description of the bar and its history, and includes a reception section. I was creating stubs of LGBT bars based on the Out list, in an attempt to fill a content gap and increase the number of articles related to gay culture and the LGBT community. I don't think we should be so quick to delete stubs. Clearly there are sources that can be used to expand the article. Wikipedia is a work in progress, yes? Let's give these articles time to grow. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of article I would like to spend time expanding, but I can't promise to do so immediately. I am working on many articles currently, and have 8 awaiting Good article reviews. But, I think there is enough information about this bar to justify a Wikipedia article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question '{U|Another Believe}} I nominated this as one among the many articles whose only references is the 200 Gay Bars list, as a test nomination; I don't like to nominate multiple articles in a category simultaneously. Are the others on the list for which you have made articles of similar notability to this one, or have you not determined that? Myself, I am not an expert on bars of any kind. But our general standards for eating & drinking establishments seems to be whether they are known beyond the local area. In this case, there is some coverage beyond Denver, but it seems to relate to one particular incident--if it were a person, it would be BLP1E, but we have no such rule for companies; the nearest is NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denace[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources (except one that does not mention Denace), nothing useful found via Google News. Huon (talk) 19:26, 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 07:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The lead itself doesn't even demonstrate notability ("unsigned but enjoys relative success"). Fairly significant prose issues as well, though SOFIXIT takes a back seat to the failure to meet GNG and WP:MUSIC. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as this is not yet satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Edmund Cardon[edit]

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

While the subject is a perfectly respectable professor and scientist, I find no evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR, either in article or externally. Sources I've found are all affiliated or trivial/passing mentions, and article is padded with unsourced personal details that suggests creator is associated with the subject. Until independent, reliable sources recognize his accomplishments, an encyclopedia article is unwarranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No discredit to the subject but there is minimal coverage of him in news sources and there is little to find on his publications, confirming lack of notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:17, 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 07:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article provides enough of a claim of notability, his citation counts in Google scholar are not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see any other source of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article mentions his position in the Soil Science Society of America, which does seem notable. He is also editor of a journal. The article could use additional sources, but this is better than the average soil scientist. Dimadick (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. President of that society would be notable,and so would editor-in-chief of their major journal, but not just "associate editor of one of their journals." People who want to add to our coverage of this field shoul write articles of scientists with the clearest indications of notability DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as this is not yet better satisfying the notability guidelines, aside from that he's apparently a university professor. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-income places in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm struggling with this list, as I can't see that it should be on Wikipedia. The information is poorly laid out, out of date (there has been a subsequent census) and completely original research. The subject is not well defined (what constitutes a "place"?) and misleading (income for a small number of people does not give a good statistical sample). Overall, I think that the list should simply be deleted. Worm^TT(talk) 14:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Curro2 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 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 07:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Outdated WP:LISTCRUFT relying solely on the US 2000 census as a source. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inaccurate and poorly defined. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Worm That Turned and is clearly outdated on the USA 2000 census and WP:LISTCRUFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2N3055. Sandstein 07:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KD503[edit]

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

I prodded this due to "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline".It was deprodded by the creator with the following rationale: "I has got references it's only a transistor so there's not much to say about it save for datasheet, look at article about 2n3055 it has same type of references if this is to be deleted then 2n3055 should be deleted as well". The nominator admits himself this can never be destubbed, and as such, this already suggests this should not be a stand-alone article, but at best, merged (through I can't think of a target). What does come to mind is however WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalog of things, including machine parts. As for 2n3055, well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument, but the other article seems to be better referenced and not a stub, so the comparison is not valid anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE mostly excludes articles on such specific components. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2N3055, same as MJ2955, TIP3055 and other related variants.

I don't understand the nominator's point about "2N3055 can never be expanded". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although Merging would be ok too, I think) There's far more than "catalogue" information here. Disk space is cheap. Bryce (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2N3055, as stated above. I believe that this is the best solution for this article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:NOPAGE. Blue Riband► 14:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPAGE doesn't ever support deletion of a page. It refers to whether pages should be a standalone, or part of a larger article. So do you mean merge here? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to Merge as this doesn't qualify as meriting its own page. Blue Riband► 15:08, 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 07:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2N3055. Kind of a judgement call here, but this just doesn't seem to justify a stand-alone article. On the other hand, the 2N3055 seems like a bit of electronics history, having been in production for 50 years. Covering all the 3055 variants in a single article just seems like the right thing to do. Sorry I can't find any specific wikipolicy to quote here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2N3055. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 12 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) 05:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Mather (Hanshi)[edit]

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

No claim of significance - founded a non-notable society. Non notable BLP, should be deleted. Worm^TT(talk) 10:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a former national Karate champion and national coach for the USA Karate Team under the United States Olympic Committee. He is the 10th Dan Hashi of Karate in the US. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was one of 3 people who trained the national team - but I don't see that he was the "national coach". Nor do I think it was under the USOC, but just at the Olympic Training Centre... At least that's what the puff piece source says... Worm^TT(talk) 14:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the moment will vote later. High rank has never been a criteria for notability in the martial arts. His 10th Dan Hanshi is a classic example of why in that it was either self awarded or given by his own organisation. It is telling that the only reference is a self congratulatory 'grandmater' organisation which is not credible. I would like to see some reliable third part support for the karate championships and also their significance. Karate is not part of the Olympics so I don't understand the significance of the coaching position either but it was one of several not the main one (again according to his web site).Peter Rehse (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no significant independent coverage of him or the organization he founded. Also found no independent evidence of him being a national champion. Rank doesn't prove notability. Running a string of 11 dojos also doesn't make him notable. Jakejr (talk) 21:39, 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 06:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator and my comment above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete No significant coverage and no evidence of notability as a martial artist since high rank isn't enough. Astudent0 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing that shows he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. I found no independent evidence he was a national karate champion or that the karate organization he founded was notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 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 keep. Railway stations are generally kept if it exists which as proven by the sources below It does..., Consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peravurani railway station[edit]

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

Unremarkable geographical location/railway station. A Google image search brings up many unrelated photos, suggesting that the location isn't very notable. Only 10 Google News results. CatcherStorm ^talk 10:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question of how much "inherent notability" attaches to railway stations is yet to be resolved: see comments within the past year here and here. As this station does not seem to come up to general notability criteria, and as we don't seem to have anything about the line this station is on, for the sake of discussion let us propose redirect to Peravurani : Noyster (talk), 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's definitely a real rail station.[15]. It's on the line that runs between Karaikudi Junction railway station and Pattukkottai. It's impossible for a rail station not to have extensive government reports, surveys and other historical records, many of which likely aren't in Latin script. While not major, an article of a rail station in the UK or US of this size or smaller would not even be considered for deletion. Unfortunately WP:BIAS is an issue. --Oakshade (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indeed a notable and historic railway station. Some useful content and references have been provided to establish a decent notability. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 15:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally regard all railway stations as being notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:37, 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. I disregarded the comments by the two blocked socks. MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Society app[edit]

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

Hype-heavy (borderline WP:G11) article with no real claim to notability; closest I find on Google search is a PowerPoint presentation given at a conference by one of the inventors, although name makes googling difficult. Nat Gertler (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Clear notable on opinion of: Internet Society: "The team has created innovative functionality within the Civil Society application", John Smith memorial trust: [[16]], and [17], and TechCamp: “sms-like” widget, which helped to provide pilot «voting from mobile» during President and Parliament election (2014). Our efforts with other actors prevented civil conflict and helped to fix peace after tragedy of the 02.05.14 in Odessa. Pilot findings helped to create new powerful democracy tool - Civil Society app, now there is pilot implementation. About googling difficult - it is a question about SEO, not the software importance. Try to find Grep by 'text searching' keywords, you will not find it even in top 50th. 'civil society software' you will find in on 31 position. About WP:G11 take a look on some software descriptions like DemocracyOS or Linux. Which one is better describes the software itself? Short and unclear description of DemocracyOS or hype-heavy Linux? If the article needs changes or adding more link of importance it is not a reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipadm (talk • contribs) 13:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your sources for notability of this app are not third party sources but affiliated, and are mostly not about this app but are about earlier software? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I showed only most known and English written sorces. For example here Ukrainian and Russian language sources: Civil Society app або Влада співпраці людей в цифрову епоху (ГРОМАДСЬКИЙ ПРОСТІР), Вийшла веб-версія додатку Civil Society app (Громадянське Суспільство). Приєднуйтесь до тестування! (ГУРТ), ИМЕННО ОНИ БУДУТ УПРАВЛЯТЬ ГОРОДОМ! (Думская.нет), Голосувати на виборах онлайн. Можливо? (ГРОМАДСЬКИЙ ПРОСТІР), Додаток Civil Society app – запрошуємо на перше он-лайн обговорення, Civil Society ap: Онлайн обговорення перших кроків до співпраці людей в цифрову епоху в Україні (ГУРТ), Революція громад в Україні стала можливою (UAINFO), Революция общин в Украине стала возможной (ХВИЛЯ), Конгресс патриотических организаций юга Украины, видеорепортаж с Конгресса, Основні механізми Громадянського Суспільства (ГРОМАДСЬКИЙ ПРОСТІР), МОДЕЛІ ПОВОЄННОГО МАЙБУТНЬОГО (Українська правда), Мобільні технології для НУО, ч 1 (ГРОМАДСЬКИЙ ПРОСТІР), Мобільні технології для НУО, ч 2 приклади (ГРОМАДСЬКИЙ ПРОСТІР), Мобільні технології для НУО, ч 1 (ГУРТ), Мобільні технології для НУО, ч 2 приклади (ГУРТ), Завлечь активизм в интернет (MISTOSITE), (http://www.prostir.ua/?news=hromadski-objednannya-ukrajiny-budut-znachno-posyleni Громадські об’єднання України будуть значно посилені (ГРОМАДСЬКИЙ ПРОСТІР)], CivilSocietyLab: громадські об’єднання в Україні будуть значно посилені (ГУРТ), Анонс Civil Society app (Одесский Кризисный Медиа Центр), В помощь активному гражданину (ТК КРУГ), Активные граждане (DumskayaTV), БЕЗПОСЕРЕДНЄ МІСЦЕВЕ САМОВРЯДУВАННЯ — ЧАС ДЛЯ ОБГОВОРЕННЯ (ГУРТ), БЕЗПОСЕРЕДНЄ МІСЦЕВЕ САМОВРЯДУВАННЯ — ЧАС ДЛЯ ОБГОВОРЕННЯ (ГРОМАДСЬКИЙ ПРОСТІР). There are no affiliation with those sources. And no, there are not the different or earlier software. SMS voting is a part of Civil Society app, but in case of high cost of SMS service it activates only when we receive a support for it. Civil Society app was based on experience of and included it --Ipadm (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no affiliation with those sources"? So you're saying that the "Вадим Георгієнко" who wrote this article you cite is not the person of the same name being called the "team leader of the development team Civil Society app" (translated) in this article? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first link you mentioned is really link to the content created by Vadim Georgienko, but it is not so easy to publish an article in the most known site. The second link is an interview article made by "Громадський простір" so it is fully independent! If you take a look at the dates of publishing, you will find that first article was independent interview from 31.08.2015. And for the other future questions about other links: it was 24 links given, you found one partially independent, but not less important - is it a good reason to delete article about software for Democracy? From those 24 links 12 are clearly independent and are very reliable sources. --Ipadm (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed all the links you posted, as reviewing pages in languages I do not speak is a time-consuming effort... but given how I found non-independent material in just the few I sample, I am not encouraged to take your word on how independent nor how significant the other ones are. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable subject. Nothing noted by reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is article about a software for Democracy - isn't it important knowledge for encyclopedia? 2.Reliable sources now added to the article (External links): Civil Society app або Влада співпраці людей в цифрову епоху (ГРОМАДСЬКИЙ ПРОСТІР), Вийшла веб-версія додатку Civil Society app (Громадянське Суспільство). Приєднуйтесь до тестування! (ГУРТ), Голосувати на виборах онлайн. Можливо? (ГРОМАДСЬКИЙ ПРОСТІР), Додаток Civil Society app – запрошуємо на перше он-лайн обговорення, Революція громад в Україні стала можливою (UAINFO) - let me translate it: "Communities revolution in Ukraine is now became possible" said Ukrainian most known modern philosopher Mr.Datsiuk in the article on the one of the most known news site, Революция общин в Украине стала возможной (ХВИЛЯ) - an other one of the most known news site translated and republished opiniom of the most known modern philosopher Mr.Datsiuk, Конгресс патриотических организаций юга Украины - one of the most popular TV chanel published a reportage, МОДЕЛІ ПОВОЄННОГО МАЙБУТНЬОГО (Українська правда) - '"After war" future models' an other article of the philosopher Mr.Datsiuk where he was mentioned a Civil Society app, Завлечь активизм в интернет (MISTOSITE) - independent media reportage, В помощь активному гражданину (ТК КРУГ) - independent media reportage,Активные граждане (DumskayaTV) - independent media reportage --Ipadm (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed everything in this, but will note that while you describe Mr. Datsiuk as a "philosopher", his own Facebook page (going through Google translate) describes him foremost as a "publicist". That's in line with what we see in this hype-laden article: a publicity attempt. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google simple search for "Сергей Дацюк" shows he is a modern philosopher https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Google_search_result_snapshot_for_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%94%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%8E%D0%BA_request.png - "Sergey A. Datsyuk - Ukrainian modern philosopher. In 1991 graduated from the Philosophy Faculty of Kiev University. Shevchenko. Wrote numerous philosophical articles and essays, is also the author of books online.". The same you will find in Article about him in Ukrainian version of Wikipedia --Ipadm (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you find the same in the Wikipedia entry as in the Google result because Google is taking their information from Wikipedia, as they note. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just googling result on "sergey datsyuk" 1st link and media activity observer - Ukrainian modern philosopher, political scientist.

Keep -- This is a good article about Open Source software same as Sammaty, LiquidFeedback or DemocracyOS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Людмила Лєвих (talk • contribs) — Людмила Лєвих (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Ipadm and Людмила Лєвих have been indefinitely blocked as socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ipadm.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article will certainly need better improvement especially regarding overall appearance and sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 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 merge to List of French supercentenarians. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Simone Capony[edit]

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

I think the prior AFDs have shown a disfavor towards separate articles for individuals who only notability is longevity of a national scale (based on the WP:NOPAGE essay) with some merging to a place like List of French supercentenarians. Here, of the two sources, one is the GRG table which provides nothing more than would be found on her line at the French supercentenarians table and the other is a WP:ROUTINE obituary you would find for any person who died as the oldest French person (and which justifies this section but not each person's individual article). Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 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 06:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to French list. Nothing to add to nom statement. EEng (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to French list. The available coverage does not, in my opinion, satisfy the requirements for a stand-alone article under WP:N. Canadian Paul 19:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to the French list. I've tried to conform the article to the sole source, but even after that, there's only a sole source. The sole source we have states, explicitly, that it is relying on local media. If there's only one source and the source restricts its own verifiability to local media, the subject doesn't comply with our general notability guideline. In the alternative, if there were additional sources, but only for these same facts, this would not argue for a stand-alone article. With this paucity of facts, everything in the article can be fully accommodated on the French list. See the essay WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 17:37, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Face Off Minnesota[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Event notability criteria: one-time local event with no discernible long-term impact or coverage in sources. Nsteffel (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 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 06:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, plus it fails WP:GNG. sst✈ 07:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT and clearly does not meet WP:LASTING clearly a one time event and also fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Harper (diplomat)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable and an unremarkable diplomatic career. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources used are dead links. Although she has obviously had a distinguished career, all articles I could find about her only mention her very briefly.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 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 06:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is Chair of the Arctic Council. While diplomats are not automatically notable, senior diplomats from large states often, perhaps usually, are. A WP:BEFORE check ought to have turned up a good deal of coverage of her activities that should - or at least could - have been added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

simply being chair to the Arctic council does not grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Chair of the Arctic Council if nothing else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:41, 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. Consensus is that there are not enough reliable sources to verify this. Sandstein 07:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gungal (tribe)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources for this in the usual places although, as usual, we have a ton of mirrors. Sitush (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is a thing. Curro2 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are the two sources used to create the article:

The Customary Law of Rawalpindi District by Samuel T Weston
A Glossary of the Tribes & Caste of Punjab by H. A Rose pages 296 to 297

Also note that the Punjab is in the US news recently as being the home of one of the San Bernardino shooters. Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading WP:HISTRS etc and longstanding consensus regarding H. A. Rose. The sources you name are not reliable. Abecedare encouraged me to attempt a collation specifically regarding this issue in the Indic caste context and it exists - by no means finished - somewhere in my userspace. I'm not in a fit state to find it now but I am sure some genius can - there is a way to access the root of any userspace. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The community has an article about Rose's book, [18], and the book is cited on multiple pages. I don't see that your argument that we need newer sources applies. Unscintillating (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the other source, Customary Law, the source appears to be scanned and available online. Unscintillating (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to add to the list of sources with searches on Google web or Google books. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, having an article on Wikipedia may denote notability but it certainly does not denote reliability. See David Irving and James Tod for examples of notable but unreliable historians. The same, of course, applies to articles about books, and that a book might exist on, say, Google Books, is also meaningless from a reliability perspective. I'm surprised to see you advancing these arguments but have now found the draft I mentioned earlier and hope that it helps - see User:Sitush/CasteSources. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay and your reference to WP:HISTRS suggest that you only consider "solid contemporary scholarship" to be reliable. Other editors including the creator of this article consider the Rose source to be reliable in at least some contexts, and your essay doesn't suggest that the British were into creating fake tribes. As for the second source, you raised no objection that it was unreliable when you removed it from this article. This AfD might consider restoring the section on the Gungal deleted from another article and a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a vague memory that you and I have had this discussion about some other caste fairly recently, and that the article was deleted. The Brits created castes/tribes all over the shop, as also did the native people themselves - try Census of India prior to independence and Sanskritisation for examples of these processes, noting in particular that the British really didn't have a clue when it came to caste and arguably created much of the internecine mess that exists today.
I really couldn't care less what the creator of this article thinks is reliable - consensus is solidly against them and has been for years. Would you object to a neutrally-worded note at WT:INB regarding this AfD? I don't mind you asking for input there. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in getting tied onto this AfD. I made a !vote, and you don't seem to deny that the references stand as verifying at least some of the information in this article. You say in one of the edit comments, "remove: it contradicts the sources used, which show both Jat and Rajput claims". Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that the sources are even valid, so how can they verify anything of note? I am going to post at WT:INB because otherwise this will end up as "no consensus" simply because it is mostly one person who knows what they're talking about vs one who seemingly does not. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question If the Gungal is a fake tribe created as part of a British conspiracy, I wonder if there is an explanation for the now-removed content of this article. Is this part of a current-day effort to reinforce the 100-year old British conspiracy? Also, see Wikipedia:Inaccuracy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got a clue what you are talking about, including re: a British conspiracy (Hindutva revisionism?). The Raj sources are unreliable period. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice towards recreation if better sources are found. Essentially per Sitush; I cannot seem to find coverage in reliable secondary sources. I would not judge those older sources to be reliable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 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. Not a lot of participation in this AfD, but enough to call a consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Scala[edit]

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

Overly promotional lovefest for unsuccessful politician. Ran in the Democratic primaries 2012 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, being beaten by the incumbent. This hagiography has a bombarded of sources but they are for the most part no good for notability. Most of the sources covering the election are about the election itself, not Scala. The often do not mention him or only do so in passing. There are no independent reliable sources that cover him in any depth. Article also has a large section on his hip hop career but the sources there are similarly no good. Shops, blogs, passing mentions, his own site, no mention of him, dead, primary, about his band.
This is a deceptively sourced bloated puff piece that needs to be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an article mainly about a musician, not a politician. He's released multiple notable albums, performed at notable locations with notable musicians, and the article has plenty of references and sources. I agree the article is written very promotionally, but that can be fixed without deleting the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has plenty of sources but are any good? What notable albums? Notability is not inherited from those he worked with. Article has two parts. musician and politician. Only the politician part has independent reliable sources so that's the part I went lead on. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as a politician, a lawyer or a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 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 06:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft userfy as the listed sources are not yet currently convincing for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt for Red[edit]

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

Independent film from a non-notable production company featuring non-notable actors. There are no reliable sources cited in the article, so the film itself is not notable, either via specific notability criteria or WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any reliable secondary coverage of this. The page has been created by a new account, suggesting that an element of promotion might (might!) be involved. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 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 06:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence this passes WP:GNG or WP:NF. sst✈ 07:20, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delilah Jay[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of notability, article seems to be promotional. Giant Snowman 09:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the reason for removing PROD *was* explained in edit summary. 2 more links for notability added. First author to use means of abduction to promote book. And eurovision plus upcoming mayoral campaign. Benjamin moores (talk) 11:29, 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 06:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches frankly found nothing better but draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any significant coverage, nor any reviews of her works in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Known in germany, italy and london. Literary circles and west london culture. Jim Halperin-Kim (talk) 15:06, 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Rajaei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't see the notability, lack of reliable independent sources. The article had been deleted once before here, and also on Persian Wikipedia; Just like the other article "Rahim Rajaei Rizi" which has been nominated for deletion Viva! Persia (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On at least two pages where the editor who created this page has implied the subject is a notable scholar (Creativity and Lateral thinking), he simply isn't - literally nothing comes up at all on Google scholar. I suspect this is the case for other areas. OsFish (talk) 07:59, 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 06:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, but he may become notable in the future. Delta13C (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only somewhat reliable-looking source in the article (farsnews) is an article written by Rajaei, but nothing in the sense of a biography. Also bupkis on GNews and GBooks, ergo fails WP:GNG. Has been deleted 6 times on fa.wiki, including via an AfD. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:11, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Bhandari[edit]

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

refs do not discuss the subject in depth. person is not notable based on having performed many surgeries. KDS4444^Talk 07:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though it needs to be completely rewritten given the POV. The mention in TOI seems to give him notoriety. Curro2 (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe, Curro2... Except that (in the first TOI article) they only quote him in the discussion of an article about obesity— the article actually says nothing about him at all (in the second TOI reference provided, he isn't even mentioned). My sense is that it takes more than being quoted to qualify as notable, but maybe I am wrong on that (?). Hm. Any other opinions out there? KDS4444^Talk 00:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is talked about with the history of bariatric surgery in India at this link [19]. The article itself needs to be stubbed out with the poor grammar and promotion removed. He also has a history on Google Scholar with some of his articles here - [20] [21]. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one bothered me all day as the article read like crap but still thought the subject to be notable. I stubbed the article out and removed the promotional and information that was not sourced. Added a few of his authored studies as well.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons above and more. He has a prominent presence on Google Scholar and Google Books (his articles have also been cited hundreds of times in other journals). He and his work have also been the focus of several regional, national, and international publications (including these: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]). This certainly seems like plenty to establish notability. Gargleafg (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-looking at those articles, I'm realizing that most of them are referencing a different Mohit Bhandari. Regardless, the articles cited on the Wikipedia page itself are enough to establish notability. Gargleafg (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Scholar shows good enough results. As stated above, his works have been cited a number of times and he has achieved a few milestones. Overall, the subject seems to meet WP:BASIC and passes WP:GNG. Ya sh ! 16:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tboy Show[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. G-plus is not a reliable source Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A self funded comedy sitcom that appears to be OK, unfortunately it isn't aired on a network channel and the refs don't establish notability so I vote delete. Good luck to them, sooner or later this kind of creativity creates something good. Szzuk (talk) 23:35, 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 06:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:USUAL might apply if the show is picked up for wider distribution, or otherwise becomes notable. But it's not there just yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brown (ice hockey goaltender, born 1985)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 06:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 06:35, 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 06:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of GNG pass, played almost exclusively in very low minor/European leagues. Reso lute 17:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Resolute. Deadman137 (talk) 19:25, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Werl[edit]

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

Another in a series of unremarkable German interchanges. No significant claim of notability is made, and there is no principle that interchanges are notable by default. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another run-of-the-mill cloverleaf interchange, which are commonplace and non-notable worldwide. The photo shows that it is nicely landscaped, but pretty trees do not confer notability. The Die Welt refererence is a trivial passing mention, added recently, perhaps in an effort to prevent deletion. It is hardly encyclopedic to note that urban freeways often experience traffic jams. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:42, 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". Of note, the one news source is a passing mention of the subject, and not "significant coverage". Imzadi 1979 → 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange that fails GNG. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage. As Cullen and Bushranger have pointed out, completely run of the mill. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Wii colors and styles[edit]

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

Just listcruft --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I imagine this could somehow be moved into Nintendo Wii. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Barely any content present, devoid of any formatting - there's not really anything worth saving or merging anywhere, I imagine various Wii related articles already cover it better. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary and if kept it should be moved to List of Wii colors and styles since Nintendo is not part of the consoles' name nor is the main article titled as such.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but the DS and 3DS all have seperate articles for their colours and styles, so why can't the Wii?. Andrepoiy (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't believe we should have those articles either. They're hardly a good reference point on what is good for an article anyways - the DS variant has been tagged for cleanup since 2007, and gets very little traffic in views or edits. If anything, they may exist because no ones found them and nominated them for deletion yet. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can merge these pages into their respective main article? I really enjoy these lists. Andrepoiy (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all verifiable information into the parent article. ansh666 23:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Or delete or redirect if there is no verifiable info, I guess. ansh 666 19:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as perhaps this is best if merging is not necessary.Merge as I concur there's nothing for a better solidly independent article but for what's worth, there may be mergeable content here. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would you guys be merging that isn't already in the Wii article? There's almost nothing in this article, and it's virtually unsourced. The whole article is sourced to the equivalent of a WordPress blog... Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just merge all the colours. Andrepoiy (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the article has is the most bare bones info like "A black Wii was released" and "A blue Wii was released". And its all unsourced and vague. As far as I can tell, its already covered in prose, and sources at Wii#Hardware. Its not so much of a "merge" as it "start writing over there" (with better sourcing than this article has.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per trivial list for now and as a non-notable topic failing WP:GNG. The content is not extensive enough to warrant a split from parent article. It is also completely unsourced besides one source of dubious reliability and it doesn't say much, so there's nothing to merge currently. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Duisburg-Süd[edit]

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

Yet another in a list of unremarkable German highway interchanges. There is no claim to notability, and there is no precedent for taking all such interchanges as notable by default. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 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 → 13:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete another interchange that fails WP:GNG. These nominations should have been grouped together. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bundesautobahn_524 with option to merge None of the above !votes have made an argument for deletion. As per WP:N, article content does not determine notability. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Further, arguments for deletion based on non-notability must also show (as per the policy WP:PRESERVE and the policy WP:ATD) that the topic is not useful as a redirect. It is only necessary to look at the What links here to determine that this topic is useful. Since this Kreuz was completed in late 2014, any new information on the topic can be added at the target of the redirect for now. Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Lieske[edit]

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

WP:BLP, written like a campaign brochure and parked on a single source, of a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL; if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that the subject was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. But nothing here demonstrates any preexisting notability — and it's worth noting that the article was created by a user named "Johnclieske123", suggesting a conflict of interest. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A review of one search engine did not show that there is significant coverage; I do not consider the subject to meet WP:NPOL or any other notability guideline. As the subject currently fails to meet notability, the article should be deleted per WP:DEL8. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN unless/until he wins an election so to me the more interesting question is whether he's notable in some other way, most likely WP:PROF. If he were, the article would need to be rewritten to focus on what he's actually notable for, but might be saved from outright deletion. However, his institution is not highly ranked (#250 in the US in political science from the searches I did), he has no major national or international awards, and his publications are not highly cited enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. ("Regional subcultures of the United States" has 154 citations in Google scholar but the rest are all below 100 and his h-index is only 9.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 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 redirect to Forces Goal 2030#Air Force. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the Bangladesh Air Force[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, to the extent that this should be covered it already is covered in Forces Goal 2030, and could easily be a section in the not terribly long Bangladesh Air Force. Curro2 (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Forces Goal 2030#Air Force, where this is already properly covered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should this phrase even exist as a redirect? We don't normally redirect Future of X country's Air Force, Navy, et cetera. Curro2 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, but since the title already exists, redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forces Goal 2030#Air Force per above.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:13, 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.