Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 January	7 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiak Capital Group LLC[edit]

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

It appears to fal WP:NCORP; the article is sourced to a series of press releases, churnalism, databases, and the Navallo book, which appears to be self-published. Google search turns up more of the same. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 00:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation once reliable sources surface. My searches for sources returned mostly trivial coverage like this and this. None of the sources discussed Kodiak Capital directly and in detail.
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kodiak Capital Group to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as there's nothing currently to suggest better yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life of Marilyn Monroe[edit]

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

Taking this to AFD since PROD was contested. The article is an unnecessary content fork since it contains no meaningful content that isn't already covered in the main Marilyn Monroe article. Not even worth redirecting. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stand alone article. With the very detailed expansion of the main article which is now rated FA, the need for this sub-article amounts to unneeded redundancy/content fork. Kierzek (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlikely any better signs of a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no point in a standalone article. No point in redirecting, because this is an unlikely search term. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. This was split from the article of Marilyn Monroe, and is well sourced. Christian75 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is not a concern in this case; the issue is that this is essentially an unnecessary duplicate of another article's content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be part of someone's effort to reduce the main article to an acceptable size for mobile browsing. It's a bit.... big now, I ran a check and it took over 1 minute to load. I make no judgement's on validity or notability, but I don't think removing the content from the main article would be of any benefit to non-mobile users. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 05:13, 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) 18:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Geurtjens[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who still fails WP:RLN. Contrary to the info in the article, he hasn't represented Wales per this source. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Delete. A recreation of a previously deleted page. Mattlore (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:RLN. There is some significant coverage in this source but everything else I can find is just a passing mention so not enough to pass WP:GNG either. The article in its current form is different enough from the previous one that it probably shouldn't be speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G4. Sarah-Jane (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:22, 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disk Order[edit]

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

Article was prodded, then I restored it via a request at WP:REFUND, but personally I think this would qualify for speedy deletion if we had a category for non-notable products. The person who placed the PROD tag wrote: "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 (software) requirement." I agree. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search found nothing but links to download it and a couple of press releases, definitely not enough to meet WP:GNG. Sarah-Jane (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no credible evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable source, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, nothing to even minimally suggest better and satisfying software notability. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 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 merge to Star Wars#In other media. (non-admin closure) ––Davey2010^Talk 22:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars live-action TV series[edit]

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

After three years since the previous discussion ended with no consensus, it's time to renominate this article, which absolutely fails WP:CRYSTAL. It's an article about a proposed television series, which hasn't entered PRE-production and may not ever exist. Since the series was proposed in 2005, everything related to Star Wars has changed – new movies, new series' ownership – and nothing left in this article is verified or accurate.

Rumors and past discussed plans in interviews are not enough to merit notability. The entire article is based on interviews with Lucas and McCallum, who aren't involved anymore! An article should be (re-)created only when an actual series enters production (like the Untitled 2017 Star Trek TV series article). This information is worth a mention at best in the main Star Wars franchise article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the show has started production. Or has been ordered. Or even a pilot. Or a pilot order. The current contents is a mix of interviews and rumors, and no studio or production company press releases, and does not warrant a TV series article.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with judicious pruning, to Star Wars (e.g. to Star Wars#In other media) following the same precedent for Star Wars#Untitled Han Solo Anthology film and Star Wars#Untitled Boba Fett Anthology film. I think WP:NFF rationale should apply to television series. A compromise could have a well-developed draft in development (using sources beyond routine news blurbs, i.e long-form journalism or reviews of the news bites), see for example Gambit (2016 film). In any case, statements like "The series is to..." or "It will feature..." should be obliterated as outdated, and even stating "so and so said in 2012 that he hoped it would be..." even if verifiable, is trivial, and would eventually be rendered moot by what the series will be, whenever there actually is one. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per AnimalParty; this should not have an article created until the series is confirmed for air on a network's television schedule, and under its actual title, not a spec heading. Nate • (chatter) 10:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per arguments above. I'm convinced a Star Wars TV series is inevitable, but it's still probably a few years off, and it shouldn't have its own article until it's actually in production. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:11, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Andrade[edit]

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

Not notable. Only able to find 1 other independent source about her which is a very brief statement from her: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-AgNAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR1&dq=Jacqueline+Andrade&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqxsKG85XKAhVBaRQKHeNQAHoQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=Jacqueline%20Andrade&f=false There just isn't enough information to establish notability. ツStacey (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Andrade is also known as Jackie and her research has been notable on a number of occasions under that name: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22jackie+andrade%22&oq=%22jackie+andrade%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.5375j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=%22jackie+andrade%22&tbm=nws — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad0214 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2016 January 7 (UTC)
Thank you for that - With that information I would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion please ツStacey (talk) 13:50, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema etiquette[edit]

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

This article is basically a screed against bad behavior in movie theaters, disguised as an article. It draws a conclusion that people bring their children to the movies for educational purposes based on this source that argues almost exactly the opposite: that movies serve to educate our children even when that is not the expectation. All in all, this article serves no encyclopedic purpose. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first draft certainly wasn't up to much, but it seems salvageable as an article in the same context as Concert etiquette - I've pulled up a couple of sources about cinema chains adapting their policy to suit objections about behaviour from patrons. --McGeddon (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not hard to find more material such as Debrett. Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“

In the early era of silent screenings, cards were shown before films bearing etiquette announcements such as “Ladies, kindly remove your hats”, “Loud talking or whistling not allowed”, and “Please applaud with hands only”.

”

Keep. Now that the page has been edited and cleaned up it is certainly worth keeping. --Mareshelle (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Per a review of available sources, this is a notable topic that meets WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Article is now significantly different that what was proposed for deletion. It has essentially already undergone the WP:TNT process. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:49, 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. MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sopala[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Promotion/self-promotion indicated by tone and creator's sername. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Drmies and Reaper Eternal. Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that article appears to be self-promotion and fails WP:MUSICBIO Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest this better satisfies the applicable notability guidelines yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem notable on first glance at WP:MUSICBIO.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 05:25, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Degeneracy (mathematics)[edit]

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

Degeneracy is not a notable topic in mathematics. The present article is just a miscellaneous rag-bag of uncited examples which have little or nothing in common. This article fails WP:GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC) WITHDRAWN following clear consensus that there is something of value in the topic (even if it the present content is not it). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. We have something like 300 inbound links to this article (including via redirects such as "non-degenerate"). That's a pretty good indicator that degeneracy is a notable topic in mathematics. The lede makes quite clear that degeneracy (and "degenerate case") does have a particular meaning in mathematics; which the examples then fulfill in their different ways. Certainly there's work on the article that wouldn't go amiss. But there is a significant concept here to present, so the topic should definitely be kept. Jheald (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Encyclopaedia of Mathematics has numerous entries for various types of degeneracy in its index. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a cursory search of google scholar will reveal numerous sources substantiating notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the article is a stub, but degeneracy is a broad concept, widely used in applied mathematics, including probability theory (see, for example Degenerate distribution) and physics (see, for example Degenerate energy level). Although it is probably impossible to give a general formal definition, mathematicians generally agree that it is a single concept that is transversal to most mathematics (dimension, and singularity (mathematics) are similar broad concepts that have many formal definitions, which depend on the context and the area of mathematics, but are strongly inter-related; see dimension of an algebraic variety for an example of many nearly equivalent definition of dimension.). D.Lazard (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept described in the article does not have a single crisp mathematical definition, and the article itself is in dire need of sourcing, but neither of these is a good reason for deletion. Degeneracy is a significant and well-known concept throughout mathematics, so we should improve our article on it, not eliminate it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion. If there is no coherent topic but there are a good many notable instances, then would a disambig page be more sensible? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because the commonality between these topics is conceptual rather than based purely on similarity of names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not change to a disambiguation. Lots of hits in titles both on Google and Google scholar. Handling and checking of degenerate cases is something you have to do all the time. Also, degeneracy is an overall concept of being a very small or boring case, so turning this into a disambiguation is not appropriate. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:04, 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. Sandstein 08:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of UoSAT satellites[edit]

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

{{UoSAT}} is a navbox already found on the bottom of every UoSAT page, and this list is not actually linked from any of the six UoSAT articles. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This list page really seems rather silly (I hope there is no WP:STRICTRULE forbidding the use of "silly"); since it all fits in the navbox, it is completely unnecessary. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MartinZ02 (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that UoSAT redirects to this list, so we'd lose that as a search term if we deleted this index, however short it is. Any suggestions about how to fix that navigational issue? postdlf (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The UoSAT article is essentially an orphan, with no other articles pointing to it. It should probably be redirected to Surrey Satellite Technology, since they're the ones that build 'em. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you might be right. The individual UoSAT articles are currently listed there under "see also"; maybe give them their own section at Surrey Satellite Technology, and redirect this list there as well? postdlf (talk) 19:36, 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 Consensus to not delete. What I mean by that is there is some substantial feeling that White Student Union (Towson) should be merged into this, and also substantial feeling that the two articles should both exist. What we're mostly concerned with here is whether to delete or not, and clearly the answer to that question is, no. The question of whether to merge or not can continue on the article talk pages as part of normal editorial process. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White Student Unions[edit]

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

Apparent content fork/POV fork of White Student Union, created by new (SPA) user. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though the other page should probably be moved to 'White Student Union (Towson)' Curro2 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles; the Towson group doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an article separate from the larger topic and should be included in the article as the most (only?) prominent example. ElKevbo (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge concur with ElKevbo ----Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ElKevbo. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my official position, I think we should keep this article and merge the content from the Towsen group's article into this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a content fork but the main subject. Merge Towson group into this article. I tried to edit this article neutrally to protect it from SJWs and added historic information. I don't think the new pages have anything to do with white supremacy but it started there 50 years ago, and thus this is a subject that has been discussed in depth over the years. Why there is no article for Black Student Unions is a shame. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page please, it says alot about the different kids of white studentunions and also includes material which existed before. Previously there was just a page about one union "White Student Union", and this is mor einclusive and tells about other ones that exist. There has to be some article which talks about the emergence of the new swhite student unons that are calling for safe spaces for white students tot alk about their views because they feel muzzled and to differentiate that they are not of the white supremacist variety or that there are differences in some white student unions...some are more white supremacist and omse arent.Shannonfraser (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Shannonfraser (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

I was thinking, that merging the two articles may not be the best idea, that the Twoson WSU could have it's own page (in addition to this pne still existing) just like student unions from each university have thir own pages...you know like there's a page on religion in general and then a page for each religion etc.Shannonfraser (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. If we were going to do that then at the very minimum, the article on the Towson WSU should be renamed to "White Student Union (Towson)". FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agreedShannonfraser (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it, so it makes it more clear. A merge would be good. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much synth here that should be removed. GAB^Hello! 20:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly Merge into another article. After trying to clean this up a bit, I've come to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the sources (and the overwhelming majority of the coverage) is about a 2015 hoax perpetuated by The Daily Stormer and 4chan in which numerous Facebook pages purporting to represent fictional white student unions at various colleges were created by people unrelated to the colleges in question; almost all sources describe it in a manner that is at a bare minimum extremely skeptical. See eg. here and here. While we might be able to have an article on that (alleged) hoax, there isn't any significant coverage of them distinct from it, so I don't feel we can support an article under this title that will pass WP:RS or WP:V. Another possible option would be to Rename to something along the lines of 'White Student Union Hoax' or the like; while there have been denials from the people who run the Facebook pages in question, not a single WP:RS, as far as I can tell, supports the idea that the 2015 eruption of Facebook pages represents anything real. --Aquillion (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue though is that it's a real thing that has existed for many years, and now is back in various (non-racist) forms. Regardless of how official they are, they are being reported on in reliable sources. And the one at Towson was created several years ago so it's not chan trolling. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books and Google Scholar both bring up a large number of sources which give coverage to the concept of white student unions. Many of these sources were published before the whole 4chan debacle. Here's a few of the numerous sources available: [1][2][3].

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Giuliano[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google News and Book searches turn up nothing for "Michael F. Giuliano". Just "Michael Giuliano" brings up a lot - about a host of other people named Michael Giuliano, but not this one. Vanilla Google is much the same, except with the "F." you get Wikipedia mirrors and plenty of "find a person" type sites. The stated accomplishments of the subject listed in the article, such as working for Intel, owning a trademark, being an inventor of unspecified things, and playing college football in some capacity (but not enough of one for sports-reference.com to have any record of it) are not really the sort of things that qualify one for an article in the first place. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims of notability are very weak, references in the article are very weak, and a good faith search for reliable sources came up dry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A psychologist of the same name seems closer to being notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:58, 30 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 16:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my own searches also turned up nothing better. Fails notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Cinema[edit]

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

While the previous AfD for this organisation closed as keep, I can see no indication there or elsewhere online that there has been sufficient reliable source coverage for it to be considered notable. Sam Walton (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 30 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 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly nothing to suggest even minimally better notability. FWIW, the 1st AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters of cinema. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd almost recommend WP:TNT-ing the article. This is as spammy as it gets. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is something to be said about the group's notability since there is frequent mentions of the DVD releases (albeit mostly through press releases) in places like ~~the Boston Herald.~~ I do note some false positives with links like this one, as TIFF had programming by this name that does not appear to be affiliated with the group. I'll keep digging. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BH link is not about this group - I thought it might have been referring to the Hitchcock release, but it wasn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found two reviews for the DVDs [4], [5]. It is listed in this book by Scarecrow Press, but I don't know how useful that would be for notability given that it's in a link and there's no writeup about the group, just a list of websites with good site design. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another warning of a false positive: Phaidon made a book series that also appears to be unrelated. I am finding some coverage of the DVD releases, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are you not finding the reviews? Here's a load in the Guardian. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a load in the Telegraph. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A different google search which brings up a load of reviews. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's a valid argument to be made to delete List of Masters of Cinema releases, as it's just a list page of releases. This is fairly indiscriminate and it's rare that we really need a full listing of DVD releases by a company. I don't know that we really need to merge much beyond the two DVD releases reviewed above, so I may just nominate this for deletion myself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for deletion here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've cleaned the article up dramatically, removing the promotional puffery. I found some reviews for the company. Normally I would raise an eyebrow at using releases for already notable films, but the work done in the product line is specifically highlighted in some of the reviews so that should be enough to make them usable. It's not the strongest keep and I do still believe that the overall list page would warrant deletion, but offhand I think that the product line is safe. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. The company's releases consistently place on the top of DVD and Blu-ray releases of the year lists.[6] Deleting this would be like deleting The Criterion Collection. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - After Tokyogirl79's work, it now is well referenced enough, and not promotional, to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haffez Colony premier league HCL[edit]

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

Article is about a cricket league with evidence of meeting notability. There are no references in the article aside from the league's web site which is hosted on a do-it-yourself web site. I can find no coverage in any sources, even unreliable ones; just finding Wikipedia, and self-published stuff like their misspelled facebook page. Whpq (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per nom. JTtheOG (talk) 06:38, 30 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 18:52, 30 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 16:40, 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) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Oasis[edit]

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

It's not clear that this is a notable company. The dispensary seems to have been closed[7] The point of the article seems to be more about the litigation than the organization and while important, I don't think a single municipal regulation dispute is notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to the commonality of the name, research is a bit difficult, but searches did not appear to turn up enough in-depth coverage about this company to show they pass notability standards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 30 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 18:52, 30 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 16:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned as this is certainly questionably better notable and improvable as although there are listed sources, this could certainly be better with enhanced coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer Ricky81682 and fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:43, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Stuttgart[edit]

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

As someone else has noted, this is a "non-notable interchange. Just like thousands of others." As I have noted as well on other articles recently nominated, "having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted." This was previously included in a group AfD, but the recreated article does not satisfy the GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 19:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Imzadi 1979 → 19:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable interchange. Dough4872 21:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 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 18:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not pass WP:GNG - non notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. Also, this particular interchange is clearly not unremarkable. It started out as a cloverleaf, but was later extensively modified to its present, unusual, configuration because of heavy southbound traffic, and because there had been changes in the plans for construction of Autobahns in the Stuttgart area. Those changes, and the reasons for them, are described in the German Wikipedia articles about the interchange and the three Autobahns it connects, and probably also in the German language book about the Autobahns in Baden-Württemberg cited by some of those articles (Klaus Schefold, Alois Neher (Hrsg.): 50 Jahre Autobahnen in Baden-Württemberg. Eine Dokumentation. Im Auftrag des Autobahnamtes Baden-Württemberg. Autobahnamt Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 1986). Bahnfrend (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And please also watch the discussion on WikiProjects Highways page, --Chandler321 (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a rationale for your !vote would be nice. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:04, 5 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. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 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} 04:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of, "This is sufficient to know that there is no policy basis to delete the 'topic', also known on Wikipedia as the 'subject'." did you not understand? Unscintillating (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Despite the fact that English Wikipedia has no guidelines for notability of "roadways" the article is notable to hard guidelines in German Wikipedia. And as you can see, the equivalent notability statement from German Wikipedia (translated into English) are very strict yet:

"Transport routes and structures

of nationally influential importance, for example an important historical trade route
transport interchanges
- motorway junctions and triangles are notable if they include at least two nationally important Autobahns (in Germany mostly Autobahns with one- or two-digit Autobahn numbers) or have other outstanding features such as design or history.
pioneering works in transport technology
Autobahns and highways of the next highest category including (depending upon the country concerned, eg national or federal highways), roads built similarly to Autobahns, international connections (of national significance, not "local border traffic") or a part of a continental road system.
airfields with an ICAO code"

And somewhere here I've read that almost every notable article in another language IS also notable for English Wikipedia. Next is: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." [8] As long Wikipedia is a collaboration project you may find the right quote about this interchange in one of many good books existing about German Autobahn interchanges and their history and architecture. And Highway interchange means only the connection between two or more Autobahnen, so it is no infinite list and these interchanges are in fact important for Europe's traffic in general. --Chandler321 (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've found that according to WP:GEOROAD the German highway network is notable. The whole network! And a connection between Germans biggest kind of streets (Autobahn) in fact is part of the network and therefore notable. And as I learned: consult WP:GNG only when there are no other notability guidelines. There are also a lot of sources about German Autobahn interchanges (main part in German) we can cite. There are only about 200 connections between two or more Autobahnen, this is not that much. --Chandler321 (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

road interchanges are not inherently notable. In fact many of the German ones have been recently deleted. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chandler321: you need to parse what WP:GEOROAD better. A highway network, if maintained by a state or national government, is "typically notable". The individual highways in those networks are also "typically notable". The guideline then goes on to state: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject." It's this last part that would apply best to interchange/intersections, and it parallels what WP:GNG says for article topics. In other words, it's incumbent on those who want to keep the article to demonstrate that the subject meets the bar set by WP:GNG, and at this moment, this article still does not. There are only three sources cited, the first is self=published (so not a "reliable source" for our purposes), and the other two are just statistical references (not "significant coverage"). I should also note that the second source is being used in a way that goes against how we are supposed to use primary sources by drawing conclusions from those statistics. In short, GEOROAD doesn't justify keeping this article at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 09:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is no inherent notability of interchanges. Many of the keep voters are simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE with zero evidence of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 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. interviews are primary and therefore do not add to notability. Keep votes based on interviews therefore discarded. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toby 'TobiWan' Dawson[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability here at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 01:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incomprehensible, and no real evidence that the subject meets WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG, content present is trivial at best. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, there these two sources: [9] from The Verge and [10] from Zeit Online. I admit two interviews isn't very compelling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just some interviews he's had (and therefore passes GNG) MSI, Sport1DE, redbull, Zeit. Also, the references has even more. Finally, he's casted one of the biggest tournaments in eSports and arguably in the world, The International 5, so if you want to delete it atleast WP:TNT it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Nick-D: I guess I will put him under entertainer since there isn't a eSports notability section. He's had significant roles (casting The International 5, 4, 3, 2 ,1 and Frankfurt Major 2015). The community voted on who will cast those finals, so I guess him out of 15 different casters winning will count as a large fan-base. For #3, he was the person that pretty much started the DotA 2 casting scene. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it comes down to whether or not he meets the WP:GNG. Are there third party sources covering him in a significant manner? I'm not really convinced yet, some of these sources don't look so reliable, and interviews are usually considered more of a first party account, not third party coverage, unless there's a lot of article before/afterwards. Then there's the problem of so little content being present currently in the article... Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also of note - if you look at the article history, you'll see that the article was created by DatGuy as a draft at WP:AFC, the submission was declined by Onel5969, and then DatGuy proceeded to publish his draft anyways, 20 minutes later, without any improvement. So the article creator, and sole "keep" !vote, created the article despite being advised of major notability issues. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as there are some sources but nothing fully convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Verge source in the article is in depth and reliable. Other reliable sources not hard to find, as per above. - hahnch e n 13:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - Coverage in reliable sources as noted above, here are even more hits from the reliable video game sources search engine. Page definitely needs some work though.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some in particular that cover him in significant detail, aren't entirely interviews, and are from WP:VG/RS? All you did is link to a blank Google search page. The "Verge" source is really the only one that meets all three of the above... Sergecross73 msg me 16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honestly there's only this Kotaku article that's primarily about him, otherwise here's mentioned in this, this, this, and this (2/5 of the videos in the last one are by Tobiwan (apologies from the ref overkill). The sources that are found elsewhere should suffice to indicate notability.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, imo: notability exists. The content is poor and the article needs improvement, I have tagged the article accordingly. Aeonx (talk) 10:24, 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) 18:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Kanazawa[edit]

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

There are a number of individuals with this name but I have been unable to find any in-depth coverage of the anime guy other than listing his participation in various works. No in-depth coverage, fails GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 22:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no point arguing that he's been covered in print media in Japan since no one has access to the info. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Media Arts shows him involved in a bunch of anime titles, but not much individual coverage [11] ANN shows he was Chief Animation Director in Captain Tsubasa J. [12] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No print articles or interviews visible under either of his names (金沢比呂司 or 金澤比呂司 where the latter is what he is being credited as now) or anything qualifying as WP:RS in Japanese. All hits are blog sites where he is simply listed in credits for the anime he has produced. Jun Kayama 14:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Samuelson[edit]

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

I am not convinced this person fulfils the notability criteria. Being the brother of a known actress, doing some racing on the side and starting a PR business I think is not enough. Perhaps the job at TVR could count, but I think maybe not. Egil (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything in the article that indicates notability appears to be more promotional for his business. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, certainly questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton Partners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't find sources meeting CORPDEPTH, nevermind multiple such articles as would be required under our guidelines. joe decker ^talk 02:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches noticeably only found several press releases and passing mentions, nothing at all to suggest even a minimally better notable article. Notifying past AfD users Lankiveil, Fiachra10003, Doncram and BethNaught in case they're not aware of this current AfD. SwisterTwister talk 08:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure why you don't think there's WP:CORPDEPTH. The Bloomberg article is a perfectly clear-cut discussion of the company, and the WSJ and Columbia Business article are pretty good. The WSJ article is not directly about Eaton but certainly discussed the company in some depth; the Columbia Business article discussed the company directly but is arguably not a nationally-recognized journal (no bitching, please, Columbia alum Wikipedians!). The article needs work, but that's never a reason for AfD. I may have a go at improving this one. P.S. Thanks SwisterTwister for prompting me. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge looks like the firm has been acquired by Stifel Financial, retain the article's history as a redirect. 009o9 (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair observation, but this would be premature as the acquisition has been "agreed" but almost can't happen until some time in 2016. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:57, 22 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} 07:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW I hope this can be relisted a third and last time with hopes for better comments. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per nominator's request —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company is covered fairly regularly by the private equity, hedge fund press as well as larger publications such as the Wall Street Journal. The acquisition by Stifel Financial, which closed on Jan. 4 give this company increased prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.59.247 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Some sources found, possible copyvio removed. (non-admin closure) GermanJoe (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Samaj[edit]

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

No credible indication of notability. Article sources are only list entries and passing mentions from affiliated sources. No independent in-depth coverage found via Google. Also, the article is plagiarized from their "About" page here, or they copied the Wikipedia article to create their "About" page (either way, not a good sign). GermanJoe (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC) GermanJoe (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (as nom) - additional sources show some notability. Possible copyvio has been removed. GermanJoe (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, daily newspaper of a major news outlet, see http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/india/20091220/1409698.html , http://www.thehoot.org/media-watch/media-practice/who-needs-paid-news-5714 , http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-05/news/47049531_1_indian-readership-survey-mruc-indian-newspaper-society . Was one of Haryana's top 10 daily newspapers in 2011, with 109,000 circulation, (‘Aaj Samaj’ which made an entry to the top 10 dailies in the previous round of survey, has lost a few readers in the state. Its current AIR stands at 1.03 lakh as compared to 1.09 lakh in IRS Q1 2011 and 40,000 in IRS Q2 2010.) --Soman (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for finding those sources (I looked, but didn't see them). I have added the URLs as external links for now, in case someone wants to use them for further improvements. GermanJoe (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Soman (talk · contribs)'s sources, which provide significant coverage of the subject. I have rewritten the article so that there are no copyright violations. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 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) 00:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europhile[edit]

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

This article and sources consist of (1) a dictionary definition and (2) a single example of the word used in a sentence. There's nothing here that Wiktionary can't cover. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. This is a very wikitionary page and not very encyclopedia like.--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current page is a stub and, per WP:DICDEF, "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry". The page would be easy to expand from sources such as this or that, which analyse Europhile attitudes to Europe in some detail and so demonstrate the notability of the concept. Andrew D. (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many other articles with similar ethnic themes as this article, and feel mere dictionary entry would be insufficient. Min al Khadr (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep little more than a Wiktionary entry right now but this could be expanded into a proper article. Curro2 (talk) 16:45, 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).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Prange[edit]

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

Does not meet NGOLF or GNG John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep She has won two professional golf tournaments. She clearly passes NGOLF....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - her wins were in what is essentially minor league golf, not on the LPGA. That does not meet NGOLF. Unless someone can make a GNG arguement, she is not notable. John from Idegon (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use expansion + additional references, not deletion per WP: ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Does not appear to pass WP:NGOLF, but is also slightly more notable for winning the TV show. Delta13C (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' fails notability requirements for golfers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To follow-up on my previous comment, these sources reinforce the subject's notability: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. There's more. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10]. WP:NGOLF is a guideline to determine if Golfers are presumed notable, which the subject does not appear to meet. However, the subject does pass WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Prange Still On Move After `Big Break'". Hartford Courant.
^ "Prange's short game gets a break". Herald & Review.
^ "Noblesville native Prange out to conquer Lost Marsh again". nwitimes.com.
^ "Big Break Player Wins Futures Tour Event". (subscription required)
^ "Prange gets a break". (subscription required)
^ "Now or never for Prange". (subscription required)
^ Mistake-Free Golf. p. 28.
^ "Big Break player Prange wins Futures Tour event". USA Today.
^ "JU hires 'Big Break' winner as women's golf coach". The Florida Times-Union.
^ "Golfers catch 'Break' on TV". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. (view both pages)

Comment I think GNG is always such a judgment call when it comes to athletes and I'm not sure which way it goes here. I am curious about whether an NCAA First Team All-American selection would meet WP:NCOLLATH. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination/now voting keep - The reference above from the Jacksonville paper on her being named as women's head golf coach at Jacksonville University does elevate her to an automatic notability standard, altho I cannot recall which one. College head coaches are notable, period. John from Idegon (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melrose Kai-Banya[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. And simply being ambassador to Russia does not grant automatic notability especially when there is no evidence of any work in the role. The small amount of hits are just 1 line mentions. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no significance. sst✈ 16:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:14, 30 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 16:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 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. After deletion, I will create a redirect to List of City of Heroes characters#Arachnos. MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnos (City of Heroes)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. All sources are either from the developer and the City of Heroes tie-in comic. Googling did not bring up any reliable sources mentioning Arachnos. Soetermans. T / C 15:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into the City of Heroes article. No independent notability. sst✈ 16:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect where it is currently mentioned and merge further if needed as this certainly isn't solidly notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps save a summary with sourced information and create a redirect to City of Heroes or to the List of City of Heroes characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're in agreement that this concept isn't independently notable, but it's all primary source detail with nothing worth merging and the redirect isn't of any particular importance. czar 18:44, 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. MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Hero[edit]

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

This page doesn't seem to have a reason to exist. It's an article about a drama that hasn't aired yet and, upon a quick search, doesn't seem to have much information on it, at all. Awesomewiki64 (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. My first thought was that maybe this nomination came a bit too soon, being made only a few hours after the article was created. But I see that the article's creator also created a similarly "too soon" article, God Of War Zhao Yun, about three weeks ago. That article hasn't improved in three weeks, so I'm seeing little likelihood that this one will ever see any improvement, either. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:51, 31 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 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unlike the Zhao Yun article, which had numerous sources turn up when a search was done, this article did not. Userfy is always an option, until more sources become available. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 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 speedy deleted by Lectonar, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): WP:COI, CSD G11 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apni Bakery[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There is nothing in the article to suggest this is anything other than an ordinary bakery, and no references to suggest otherwise. ubiquity (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asit Baran Adhikary[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is extremly poorly written, to be sure, and requires major cleanup, but it includes a lengthy list of references, from reputable sources, that I believe easily pass the WP:GNG criteria, such as http://www.bssnews.net/newsDetails.php?cat=0&id=534322$date=2015-11-22&dateCurrent=2015-11-30 (National News agency of Bangaladesh) or http://thedailynewnation.com/news/74712/dr-asit-elected-president-of--atcsa.html. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as president of ATCSA. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:27, 15 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 18:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the article has a long list of sources, with two exceptions they're all directory listings or capsule bios (most likely written by him) from sources that are not arms-length, such as places he has worked. The two excptions are the ones that When Other Legends Are Forgotten highlighted: (1) a government news agency announcement, in fewer than 100 words, of his election as president of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia (ATCSA) and (2) the same event covered in slightly different words by a newspaper. I think it unlikely that the two are intellectually indepedent of each other. They're probably both based on the same press release. In any case the depth of coverage is not substantial.

Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, JSTOR, EBSCO, and ProQuest returned passing mentions (e.g. [13] and [14]) and a handful of journal articles with very few citations. Consequently fails to meet WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG.

I would recommend a redirect to Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia, but that article hasn't been written yet. It may be that he's president of a non-notable organization. Worldbruce (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elected President of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia is a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#3. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. Elected president doesn't mean one has to be elected to be a member. It could just mean that no other member was willing to organize the annual congress, or that he was thought a good choice because he lives in the host city. I'm open to changing my recommendation if anyone can show that ATCSA is "highly selective" (requires election rather than just, say, dues paying). Where does it fall compared to the Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Association of Thoracic and Cardio-Vascular Surgeons of West Bengal, and Indian Association of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeons? Is ATCSA really the Asian medical analogue of a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society? Worldbruce (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be either National Academy of Sciences or Royal Society. There are hundreds of prestigious scholarly association across the globe. I will consider the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia a prestigious scholarly association considering the fact that Asia is subdivided into 48 countries. The association was established over 30 years ago and they've organized 24 annual congress. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The association is not a major one by international standards, and the criteria for WP:PROF are international. And even so, the head of a specialty organization in any country is not necessarily notable. The comparison is not to NAS/Royal Society, but to President of the AMA. By that comparison, he falls short. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps as this article would also seem acceptable behavior but also not fully satisfying the notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as president of ATCSA. The link to the organization:. International organization with members from China, Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, India, Japan and Indonesia. Active since 1972. With congress held in Baghdad, Sydney, Tokyo, Bali and Singapore. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could do with a little more discussion here—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:36, 14 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. WP:G4, obvious attempt to evade the salting of the correct title. Salt will be applied here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Yesson (rapper)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/DJ JY (Artist)

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

While I don't personally care about whether this article stays on Wikipedia or not, I doubt much has changed since the previous deletion discussion, concluding that this individual is not notable in his field. Please note there was probably good reason to salt the original title (see log at Johnathan Yesson). Jared Preston (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note failed submission of Draft:DJ JY and the author's COI. Jared Preston (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jared I conceive the article is best placed under the artists actual stage name Draft:DJ JY. Perhaps Johnathan Yesson would best serve as a redirect to DJ JY which this artist is better known as. I actually created this page (Johnathan Yesson) whilst editing Draft:DJ JY and I'm a relatively new user so didn't know which was best, hopefully you can help resolve all this and in turn maybe I can pick a few things up from you about editing and get my first page created --NoobDude (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy as my searches found nothing better and this article currently has nothing else convincing for notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. G4 - recreation of previously deleted material. Szzuk (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 much participation here, so let's call this a soft delete -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company - 8 of it's 13 references are primary sources from Aegon's websites. Reads in a promotional tone. -- samtar ^whisper 14:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be really a copy-paste page move of AEGON Religare Life Insurance; I've not reviewed it, but that page should probably be bundled in here if it's a concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done thank you -- samtar ^whisper 15:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is unlikely yet better notable based from the current article and sourcing, nothing to suggest better notability perhaps. Notifying tagger Vansockslayer. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The title Prem Khan is already salted. I will salt Prem Khan (actor) as well, due to multiple deletions and recreations of articles about this person. MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Khan (actor)[edit]

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

Subject doesn't seem to have met notability criteria for an actor. The only sources that have talked about him are his website and IMDb. Other sources are completely irrelevant and looks like they were added for the count. Fails WP:GNG. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

User Washim Rehman is the same person about whom this article is about.

Refer [[15]] for details -

The article was first created by the name 'Prem Khan' & was marked for deletion (26 September 2015).

The article was recreated second time by the same name 'Prem Khan' & was marked for deletion (16 November 2015).

The article was recreated third time by the name 'Prem Khan (actor)' & was marked for deletion by me (05 January 2016).

The user Washim Rehman was blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing so he created a new user Devil7592686.love

The article is now recreated the fourth time by the name 'Prem Khan (actor)' & is now marked for deletion (06 January 2016).

- Ninney (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. -KH-1 (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not yet a solidly acceptable article and not enough solid in-depth third-party sources overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)‎[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they clearly don't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boodelooap[edit]

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

No evidence this exists outside of one song that purportedly mentions it. The song in question (A capella by Ylvis) may not exist at all, although one site claims that its lyrics mention this drink. [16] However, googling the song's lyrics doesn't turn up any other results, nor does googling "boodelooap" turn up anything reliable. Everymorning (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I actually attempted to send the article to CSD when you nominated the article. Article is not notable and fails WP:GNG. Feel a bit like a hoax to me. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The song in which this word originates is in fact real, [17] as an IP recently pointed out in an edit to this page. What seems to be going on is that lots of a cappella groups sang "Boodelooap" in their songs earlier, and now Ylvis came up with a made-up soft drink of the same name as a fictional backstory for why people sing it. [18] However, since the article identifies this drink as fictional, it's not a hoax. Accordingly, although this probably isn't notable, it could become a redirect to A Capella (song) assuming that song is notable (which it doesn't seem to be given the dearth of RS coverage of it I could find, which is not surprising as the song is apparently brand new). Everymorning (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The song in question (A capella by Ylvis) may not exist at all," - Learn how to google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.231.35 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I did google, but it autocorrected to "A Cappella" and all that came up were a cappella versions of "What does the Fox Say?" I also googled "Boodelooap" and, at the time, unlike now, there were no RSs and no hint of where it might come from aside from the one lyric website. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources about Boodelooap and the song were published after the AfD nomination, so Everymorning's AfD nomination was sound. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, refocus and rename the article to be about the song per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Kickham, Dylan (2016-01-06). "Ylvis parodies a cappella groups in new music video". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Remember Ylvis, those guys that boldly answered one of millennials’ greatest questions: “What does the fox say?” Well, they’re back, and this time they’re lampooning inspirational a cappella music videos.
  Ylvis — comprised of Norwegian brothers Vegard and Bård Ylvisåker — dropped their latest music video “a capella” on Tuesday. The video shows the two brothers leading an a cappella group trying to inspire a young boy who’s been bullied. The group makes note of certain stereotypes common to a cappella singers: one-man beatboxing, smiling “like you know Jesus personally,” and made up words (although we do learn “Boodelooap” is actually the name of a Nigerian soft drank). They end by showcasing different musical styles of a cappella to fend off the boy’s bullies.
2. Anderson, L.V. (2016-01-06). "Ylvis' New Music Video Explains Why A Cappella Groups Have Been Singing "Boodelooap" All This Time". Slate. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Norwegian brothers Vegard and Bård Ylvisåker—better known as Ylvis—went viral in 2013 with their hit single “The Fox (What Does the Fox Say?),” which finally asked the vulpine question on everyone’s mind (and resulted in a book deal). You might think of Ylvis as a one-hit wonder, but they’ve been busy hosting a variety show on TV Norge and making silly music videos, the latest of which is a pitch-perfect spoof of self-serious a cappella groups like Pentatonix.
  In this video, Ylvis and friends set out to rescue a bullying victim using only their voices and beatific facial expressions. In trademark Ylvis style, this video pays close attention to detail (note the quintet’s coordinated woolen hats) and features plenty of non-sequitur punchlines (we finally learn why a cappella groups have been singing “boodelooap” all this time). Purists will note that this is not strictly a cappella—the track seems to have gotten some electronic help post production—but that’s not really the point.
3. Nyland, Bjørn Kristian (2016-01-08). "Ny Ylvis-låt går verden rundt: Vil brødrene gjenta The Fox-suksessen?" [New Ylvis song goes around the world: Would brothers repeat The Fox-success?]. Dagbladet (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
  The Google Translate of the article notes:
  After a theatrical song with Susanne Sundfør and a skit where Ylvis-Bard had to drink milk, they presented music video "A Capella" in Tuesday's premiere of "Tonight with Ylvis" on TVNorge.
  ...
  They think that it is acapella-parody of all acapella-parodies.
  In the video helps an acapella group a boy who is bullied and beaten up. They show up and scares the bullies away using their ability to sing any song in any style.
  What acapella group? writes USA Today, while referring to the monster hit "The Fox" and refrain "What does the fox say?"
  The website is convinced that Ylvis have the answer and that the US acapellagruppa Pentatonix should beware. According to the website hits Ylvis nail on the head with parody on today acapellagrupper.
4. Waxman, Olivia B. (2016-01-06). "Watch the A Cappella Parody to End All A Cappella Parodies: "What Does the Fox Say?" group takes on a cappella". Time. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Ylvis, the Norwegian comedy group that wrote 2013’s viral song “What Does the Fox Say?” has come out with a new music video that makes fun of a cappella singers.
  A group of the musicians help a boy who is getting beat up at school scare off bullies by their “scary” ability to sing a song in any musical style. Watch the group tackle everything from drums to trumpet noises and even show off their rap and rock styles.
  It’s aca-awesome.
5. Bui, Hoai-Tran (2016-01-06). "What does the a capella group say? Ylvis is back to find out". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Watch out, Pentatonix. Ylvis is coming for your aca-throne.
  In a spot-on parody of a capella groups that is both amazing and odd, Ylvis' a capella delves into just what makes a capella cool. Is it the singing like you know Jesus personally? The leather straps? Coordinated woolen hats? Or the fact that it seems to be an automatic anti-bully safeguard?
  So that's why a capella groups have been saying "boodelaooap" all this time — their love for Norwegian soda, and no other reason.
6. Mav (2016-01-06). "Vokální muzika je nejvíc, přesvědčují norští komedianti. Přemůže všechna bezpráví". Reflex (in Czech). Archived from the original on 2016-01-11. Retrieved 2016-01-11.
  The article notes:
  
  „Co je nejmocnější, co je nejmocnější, pravdomluvné slovo.“ Jako by v Norsku znali Jaroslava Hutku a jeho folkový hit Náměšť. Tamní bláznivé hudební duo Ylvis teď v podobném duchu hlásá, jak nejlíp přežijete šikanu, když ovládnete vokální a capella hudbu. Jenom místo šikany komunistické řeší šikanu na školním dvoře. A místo folku se pouští do rocku, hip hopu i latiny. Zkrátka zvládají snad všechna klišé, která nesmějí u vokálních souborů chybět - zejména parodují mladý populární kvintet Pentatonix. Ale i když si dělají prču, tak se vší parádou a zpívá jim to výborně.
  Komediálně-hudební duo není světu virálních videí neznámé. Roku 2013 například bratři poučili mladší generace městských obyvatel, jak vlastně dělá liška.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the song to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have refocused and rewritten the article to be about the song. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now that the article has already been rewritten and refocused, it meets the notability guideline. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the song is certainly ntoable, although the fictional soft drink mentioned therein doesn't seem to be. So If we kept this page and moved it to A Capella (song) I would be fine with that. Everymorning (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and rename to the song, as per Everymorning. After the work put in by Cunard, meets GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:53, 14 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 Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom. At first glance this certainly looks like a consensus to delete, but the suggestion of a merge target came up after most of the delete !votes, and anyway, redirects are cheap (and harmless). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of moving in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

This appears to be WP:SYNTH. While the cost of moving is a thing, this appears to be a synthesis of concerns about Stamp Duty and other things. It was a contested deletion in 2012.[19] and has had issues about whether it was created and edited largely to make points about Stamp Duty[20].--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated above, the article was considered for deletion in 2012 and contested. The article remained and since then has been refined by a number of authors. I can see no reason to delete it. I note that the nomination for deletion was made within minutes of me querying the validity of Chris Pig, by the same person who wishes Chris Pig to remain. Tomintoul (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Tomintoul is article creator and principal editor. It was tagged for speedy deletion and that speedy was contested, but it has never been to AFD before. I did tag this after seeing him/her comment on Chris Pig, but that was because I was looking at his/her history trying to figure out why that was posted to BLP Notice Board instead of nominated for deletion or worked on. I did some cleanup and referencing on Chris Pig (which I had never before edited), but actually haven't taken a position on whether it should be deleted.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. It is a WP:HOWTO move cheaply. Szzuk (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It is a good fit as mentioned below. Szzuk (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 19:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree it was created in order for someone to grind an axe about stamp duty costs and I wish I had AFD'd it rather than spent time making it more neutral. I for one, won't miss this article once it is deleted. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Useful, but not encyclopedic. There might be some content transferrable into the two 'See alsos'. Aspirex (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure about this one - it can probably be merged into the two see also and Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would sit well within Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom Tomintoul (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether exploring the newly proposed merger is worthwhile. Sandstein 12:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. I have merged the appropriate information. Szzuk (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that's really a merge, it's just the SDLT element that's been added in. Narrative is required explained that a key factor in deteriorating affordability are the huge costs associated with purchase. Tomintoul (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that the 'cost of moving' article content should not be merged in its entirety because it would be moving a WP:HOWTO into the new article. My WP experience is with AFD's and my intention was to prepare this AFD for closure. Szzuk (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom. Some content from this article has already been merged there (by another user). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 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. Sandstein 12:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary W. Walters[edit]

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

Nothing here to meet WP:GNG criteria. Won a local writing award (Writers Guild of Alberta), has a blog, belongs to a few organizations, that's about it. Lots of references, but zero non-trivial coverage in a reliable source, mostly just blogs and organizations. Has the appearance of paid editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Weak keep Unfortunately overly promotional article with too much trivia and a lot of un-referenced claims. I don't have access to Canadian Who's Who so I cna't see what claims that makes. Few library copies. Some books admittedly self-published, and I can't find River Books of Edmonton - possibly out of business. NeWest Press does exist - very small press in Edmonton. I checked most of the refs, removed some, cited others as failing validation. If this stays, unsourced statements should be removed. LaMona (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article's creator, User:Alwayssmileguys, has been indefinitely blocked for paid editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is the right place for me to add this note, but I am the subject of this Wikipedia entry and I am very sad that you are considering deleting it...note - comments relocated to discussion page)

Delete - In response to the person this article is about, who will be reading my edit... nothing personal, and you seem like a nice person. Wikipedia has certain notability criteria, and in this case it is WP:ARTIST and WP:ANYBIO. I have searched Google and not found enough reliable sources to take this article (not you) past the threshold of notability (yet). Again, nothing personal (unless you are just another sock of User:Alwayssmileguys). Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sock. I will live with this deletion if I must (of course), and will continue striving to win the Booker. I would just appreciate someone explaining to me why the bar is not nearly as high for soooo many other writers (see ones I cited for examples) as it seems to be for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marywwriter (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the articles of the other writers you mention; all have either won a notable award, and or have evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (definition of reliable sources here). You also had the misfortune of choosing an inept article creator on Fivrr. I hope you haven't already left a positive review for him. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge a huge mistake in trying Fivrrr. I should have known better. It was a moment of desperation that came from my great fear of attempting to contact Wikipedia directly for guidance. I am happy to provide non-trivial coverage of the calibre of the other writers I have mentioned, but most of them are not online but are in print format only (e.g. reviews of my books from newspapers and magazines). Here is an example: https://maryww.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/dv001.jpg I can scan others from reviews of earlier books, but if I post them online myself it still looks pretty hokey -- even though they are legitimate reviews. They're probably on microfiche somewhere because they are not recent. "Legitimate reviewers" do not review self-published books as a rule... yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marywwriter (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I am banished now, will I be banished forever? (I will now attempt to sign this properly.) --Marywwriter (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another non-trivial mention; http://www.geist.com/topics/walters-mary-w/ And there's this: http://www.writersunion.ca/pd-workshops And I can scan several that I have here in print format. The Canadian Who's Who is too expensive to purchase and they no longer give you access to out-dated versions online but I assure you I am in there and have been since about 1990. I can do a scan of the entry to that too if you want. One of the sources cited in Candas Jane Dorsey's bio (George Melnyk's literary history of Alberta) is one in which I am cited too, and have listed in the references. The winners of the Alberta Achievement Award are not anywhere online (a political decision, I am sure!) I have also been published at least a dozen times in "non-trivial" literary magazines including The Malahat Review and Chatelaine. Those are all in the bio. Which admittedly probably needs cutting.

I'll stop now and leave it in your hands. Marywwriter (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been writing for forty years, and publishing steadily. To have learned here in this forum that my achievements are valueless compared to those of hundreds of other writers in the world, many of whom are at approximately the same stage of their careers as I am and have the same credentials, is devastating to me. As I am well regarded by many of my peers and by readers, I cannot begin to explain how humiliating this experience is for me. I am ashamed to the roots of my soul when I see the banner across my Wikipedia page that says “This article is being considered for deletion.” You may argue that I brought this on myself. It was not my intent to blow my achievements out of proportion, but only to have them recorded in a place that nearly everyone goes to for information. I had no idea how else to get the information up here. Clearly it was a mistake. Now I am requesting that you just take down the article as quickly as possible and release me from the pain of this diminishment of my public persona and my personal self-esteem. Please put me out of my misery as quickly as you can. Thank you. Marywwriter (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, please take a moment to read other stuff exists. Also, you were the one who started this. You added a draft auto-biography to your sandbox here over a month ago. Then when that didn't work, you paid someone to write your article. Now it's written, and there is a discussion about whether it meets wikipedia's notability threshold. Am I missing something? Would it help to know that the article has only been viewed 26 times in the past five days? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, please take a moment to read XfD culture: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I also wonder if you saw the following text in Other stuff exists: it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Magnolia, thanks. I have now read the "other stuff exists" item. I accept that it is valid.

When I used the sandbox, I was not expecting that it might "work." I did not know that it could "work." In fact, I hoped and I assumed no one would notice it. What I was doing with it was drafting an item that I then intended to submit for consideration by Wikipedia editors. I did all the formatting, put in all the links, etc. I tested it over and over again. But when it was ready for me to ask someone on the site for input, I lost my nerve. Yet again I had read and re-read all kinds of articles on the site about why you can't publish/write/propose your own bio. I figured that if I asked a Wikipedia editor to look at what I had put in the sandbox, I would be banned for life just for asking.

I know that many writers who are on this site (there is probably an "other stuff exists" type piece to ban attempts to make this kind of point as well, but I will continue anyway) have been posted here by people on the staffs of their publishing companies or with the help of other PR contacts they have through their agents and publishers. I also know that to wait around for someone (one of my avid fans, perhaps) to get an idea that they should write a Wikipedia piece about me, and then be willing and able to take on all the intricacies that writing such a thing requires, would take longer than I have life left in me. Sometimes you have to do what you can with what you have, and in this situation, all I had was me.

I honestly believed that I had the same (or equivalent) credentials as/to many other writers on the site, and that I therefore would be welcome here if anyone knew that I existed, and that it was only due to the fact that I had no PR staff to post an entry that was preventing me from taking my little seat in the little corner that is reserved for mid-list writers in this massive machine. One of my biggest problems is that five years ago I decided to investigate the possibilities of self-publishing rather than persisting to try to find a publisher for my third novel. As I have told countless other writers in PD workshops, there are many downsides to self-publishing in this era. The damage it does to your credibility (even if you have already been traditionally published) is one. Having no PR machine is another. I am quite sure that if the identical bio to the one I have written had been posted about me by someone at a major publishing house, we would not be having this conversation. I am also sure that you are going to run into other instances where (borderline?) qualified biographees are in no position ever to get onto Wikipedia because they have chosen to self-publish. The world is changing, but it always changes slowly.

Anyway, when someone to whom I was explaining all my Wikipedia dithering suggested Fiverr, I thought this could be my solution: I could just HIRE a PR staff! And, to take the blame off the shoulders of the guy who you think has so badly written the piece about me -- he didn't. I copied it directly from my sandbox to a word document. He copied it, fucked up the footnoting I had done, and otherwise posted it word for word. All weaknesses in the piece are mine.

So no, you didn't miss a thing. All of the errors and oversights are mine. It was all done innocently enough, however, and with no malice or malingering or prevarication intended. As I said this morning, i did not realize until it was marked for deletion that i was not worthy. I am ashamed that I am not worthy. Very ashamed. But it came as a surprise. However, since there seems to be no way to make this mistake go away, I will just learn to suck it up and get back to work on my next short story. Perhaps if I find a really non-trivial place that wants to publish it (or the one after it, or the one after that), we will be able to talk again.

Marywwriter (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to my work in the Sandbox, please note the final revision I composed there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marywwriter/sandbox&direction=prev&oldid=693902133 This is the version I sent to the guy at Fiverr (the first one I found there who listed Wikipedia postings as a service he offered). You will note that he took out almost all of the links and turned them into References. I told him that I did not intend the ones he'd changed to be references. They were just links to background information on some event or person I had cited but they had no connection to me personally. He insisted, telling me that this was the format Wikipedia wanted now. So I let it go. But there should really be only EIGHT references -- these are ones that mention me specifically.

You will also note that I never submitted it for feedback for review by Wikipedia editors, which is why your claim that the sandbox didn't "work" doesn't make sense to me.

Marywwriter (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Marywwriter: In 2007 I decided to try help a man whom I have never met write an article about himself at Wikipedia. It was my first experience “editing" Wikipedia. If you stick around long enough to know what User and User-talk pages are, and how to read edit-histories, I invite you to read what followed, but to make a long story short, from that day on I have been considered a “spammer” (and other derogatory terms) here.

On the positive side, if you stick around even longer, you may discover that the good outweighs the bad. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

@ottawahitech Thank you. On Sunday I am leaving for a holiday in a place where they have no reliable internet, which is a relief. By the time I return, I will probably have recovered from this, no matter how it turns out. I think my worst nightmare is that I will remain forever on Wikipedia with a permanent notice that I am being evaluated for deletion. Like the garbage at the side of the street that never gets picked up but just smells increasingly bad as time goes on.Marywwriter (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question: Is anyone here aware of the existence of Draft:Mary W. Walters? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will research this further and ask the other WP users to do the same so we can make a fair comment to keep or delete. Lit1979 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — Lit1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Administrator note - Lit1979 started editing yesterday and went straight for AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As at least one editor has pointed out elsewhere, Lit1979 seems to be making valid contributions at Afd, stating that he or she has been following Wikipedia for some time. The editor doesn't seem to be default-!voting one way or another. Let's WP:AGF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy until a better sourced and overall solid article is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject needs to understand that this is not a comment on the quality of her work as a writer — Wikipedia does not have any institutional opinion one way or the other about such matters. We do not keep or delete an article about a writer on the basis of whether any individual editor likes or dislikes their writing — we keep or delete an article about a writer on the basis of whether that article passes or fails our content standards.
Don't take this as a personal affront to your worth as a writer or a person, because the purpose of this is actually to protect you from the unintended consequences of having a Wikipedia article — because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we cannot guarantee that nobody will ever edit the article in an attempt to publish defamatory content that attacks you for something. So we insist on reliable source coverage by which the content in an article can be properly verified, because otherwise if somebody vandalized the article in the future we would have no way to properly sort out what was true and what wasn't.
There's plenty here that would constitute enough notability if it were properly sourced, but no article on Wikipedia ever gets to have its sourcing rest primarily on WordPress and Blogspot blogs and primary sourced public relations profiles — it's media coverage or bust, always and forever, and no person, no matter how deserving they might be in principle, ever, ever, ever gets an exemption from that for any reason. We don't make personal judgement calls about whether one writer deserves an article more or less than another one does; we make the determination based solely on the quality of the sourcing that is or isn't available to properly support an article. The most talentless hack in literary history will get an article if the reliable source coverage is there, and the most brilliantly innovative new writer on Wattpad won't get an article if media aren't taking notice of their brilliance yet — it's not about the quality of their work (which is almost always a subjective opinion anyway), it's about verifiability in reliable sources.
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 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. Sigh. Let's get through the easy part first. The deletes outnumber the keeps by a 2:1 margin, and on top of that, several of the keeps make arguments which aren't supported by policy.

Now, let's move on to the part that makes me sigh. I have not looked at the AfD for List of the oldest United States House of Representatives or List of the longest-lived United States Governors, but seriously, how could some of these be good topics for lists, and others not? I'm not saying I know which is the right answer, just that it seems hard to fathom that the same answer shouldn't apply to them all. It really seems like this whole old people AfD fest should get put on hold while people go off and come up with some coherent set of guidelines which can then be applied uniformly. End of rant. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of the oldest United States Senators[edit]

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

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

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

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

There is no encyclopedic value to this list. Living a long time has no relationship to spending time in the US Senate at some point. It appears to attempt to cover every Senator that reached their 90th birthday. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your definition of non-encyclopedic is quite expensive. While you can argue as such, the limited and not very strict guidance given on what qualifies as a non-encyclopedic topic does not back up your point. Star Garnet (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Specific nonencyclopedic topics include non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Senators are an encyclopedic topic, but their longevity is trivia and completely unrelated to their notability. Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list qualifies as an excessive list of statistics (except that the statistic is irrelevant.) Wikipedia is also not any of a very long list of terrible ideas. If this is notable, then why not have a List of the oldest child prodigies or List of the oldest mineralogists? Pburka (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, you are going off of your preconceived notion of 'nonencyclopedic' that is not spelled out as such in WP:NOT. While I would certainly agree with you on, e.g., List of oldest buildings on Kansas colleges and universities, (in my non-unique opinion) age is an inherent categorizing factor among defined, limited groups of people, particularly when all members of said group have or are by default eligible for an article of their own. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders for further discussion and comparison to other similar cases. Star Garnet (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least the oldest buildings on Kansas colleges have always been buildings! This is a list of people who, at some point, were senators, and who then went on to live for a long time. It might be more accurately titled List of the oldest people who were also United States Senators. Pburka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:USEFUL, WP:LISTN--Dangermouse600 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL explains that "it's useful" isn't a good argument, and WP:LISTN explains why lists like this one aren't notable. Pburka (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an ongoing edit war on this page about whether User:Dangermouse600 is a WP:SPA. DM600 edits almost exclusively on the topic of longevity, but the account wasn't recently created and has contributed meaningful edits outside of WP:AFD. Whether or not DM600 qualifies as a SPA isn't very important, so I suggest dropping it. Pburka (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per most of the the keep arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living state leaders. This is not the strongest of list topics for cross categorizing, but not enough for deleting. Every entry can be referenced to a bio page and the ages are compiled from such. OR doesn't apply to this list in my opinion. There is clearly defined criteria for inclusion with no ambiguity. It's a list of people that are obviously notable and factoring in longevity which is at least arguably notable as well. I see no strongly compelling reason to delete this. RoadView (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Living into the 90s is not notable, it's very common. To verify visit any care home or retirement community. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Czolgolz (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic list that is an excellent example of an appropriate standalone list. Alansohn (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR in that there are no reliable sources that actually talk about "oldest Senators", this list seems to have been compiled and synthesised from other sources. WP:LISTN also would seem to apply here -nobody apart from Wikipedia seems to discuss these individuals as a set. Senators who were aged while they held office might be an interesting article if a source could be found that covers that. Note that some of the "Keep" !votes above are making arguments not based in policy, and the closing admin should disregard these. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sister List of the oldest United States House of Representatives members was just deleted. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the longest-lived United States Governors, for a much more similar page, was keep. Star Garnet (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On what planet is U.S. Senator more akin to a state governor than a member of the U.S. House of Representatives? David in DC (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:LISTN of the highest degree. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 15:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTN says that for a stand-alone list to be notable, the topic of the list must be notable. I cannot find significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources about the long-livedness of current or former members of the U.S. Senate. Or long-lividness, for that matter.
The essay WP:LISTCRUFT and the policy at WP:NOT apply. David in DC (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to satisfy WP:LISTN, which requires that multiple independent, reliable sources discuss the topic as a whole. This is just a random, indiscriminate list of old people who were senators and how long they lived. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a list of the longest termed senators or anything it's just a list of the oldest people who happened to have US Senators. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NinjaRobotPirate's rationale. This appears to be original research per WP:OR, and the specific list topic (oldest U.S. Senators") lacks notability per WP:LISTN and WP:GNG with significant coverage of that topic in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:03, 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 merge to List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States#People. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbella Ewing[edit]

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

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

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

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

It's not clear to me that this woman is sufficiently notable for here. I've found archived versions of the two articles mentioned but overall she *was* (for some unknown time period) the world's oldest African American person. Otherwise, she *was* at best the second oldest person from the state of Texas, the second oldest American and the third oldest person in the world at that time (now off the top 100 overall). The two sources are both local human interest stories about her with the diamond article basically providing the biographical details while the other only the ranking that were relevant in 2008 when she died. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the type of coverage that would satisfy WP:N or justify a stand-alone article. Canadian Paul 17:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or marge with List of supercentenarians from the United States#people. Arbella Ewing was 3rd oldest living person, 2nd oldest American as well as second oldest person who died in 2008. It is an important record holder, meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I think that Hermina Dunz's page is should be deleted than this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Feel free to nominate that article for deletion. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea [21] I found it was AfD'd ~~this month~~ a year ago but no one commented, so we can try again. Oh and this one should be deleted' per WP:NOPAGE and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Noting her race is problematic as I've yet to see a stat for the oldest Latino, Korean American, or white American person. Keeping score by race is pretty offensive to me. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the scientific GRG is still calling people "Oriental", and thinks "Hispanic" is a race. EEng (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, not last month. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG as no sources demonstrate significant coverage or notability. All but one of sources are from Texas which would all be local coverage since she retired to the area. The last is a GRG table which does nothing to establish notability. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep An exceptionally strong claim of notability, with the claim supported by multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to create an appropriate article about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What strong claim? There's nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being a supercentenarian makes you notable". I'll also state again that every source (excluding the GRG table) is from Texas which would be local coverage because she lived there. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, surpassing 110 years is a strong claim of notability. It doesn't in and of itself make you notable, it's the coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that establishes notability. These sources provided well surpass the minimum required. Alansohn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing encyclopedic here.
The lede has more information about other people than it does about the subject. It's all about where the subject stood in relation to other especially long-lived people in a mythical competition to breathe longer.
The body is similarly bereft of anything that belongs in an encyclopedia. Her family considered her a gem and attributed her longevity to positive thinking. Her parents were from Mississippi. She broke her hip at one of her last birthday parties and wound up in a nursing home. She lived, worked, married, had a child and died. Far from "an exceptionally strong claim of notability", there's barely any at all.
Notability requires significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. What we have here is profoundly insignificant coverage, and all for the non-inherently notable attribute of deferring the visit of the Grim Reaper a bit longer than most. Birthday greetings and an obit, plus a mention on a GRG table of old people who died in 2008 just doesn't cut it.
Arguing in the alternative, if others think this ~~null set of a~~ subject does scrape by our general notability guideline, ~~(although how, I cannot imagine)~~ then WP:NOPAGE counsels that a list and not a stand-alone article is the proper resolution here. David in DC (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What David said, particularly NOPAGE. Utterly empty article almost entirely about other people. "The people close to her attributed her longevity to positive thinking" -- oh, brother. EEng (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 114 is an extreme age that is certainly notable. The odds of reaching 114 are very slim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevityresearcher (talk • contribs) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

All of the top 100 names at Oldest_people#100_verified_oldest_people have reached the age of 114 and there's still more I'm certain. It doesn't seem slim enough to warrant a separate article for each person. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8 years less then the currently documented record holder? Do we automatically have pages for people that are not even in the top 100 fastest runners? Legacypac (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odds of a thing happening are absolutely irrelevant when determining the result to this AfD. This is why !voting is evil. The result should be based on our wikipedia guidelines. !Votes that have nothing to do with that should be discounted.David in DC (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Alansohn's argument: Arbella Ewing gained coverage well outside her local area in reliable sources. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States#people: Ewing got about a paragraph of coverage in this book [22]. Additionally, she was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records [23] is frequently listed in academic studies of longevity such as this one [24] and got coverage in Minnesota, West Virginia, South Africa and Australia based newspapers when she died (these articles can be found by typing her name into LexisNexis). (Most of the newspaper coverage was very brief (often only a sentence or two long) and repeated the same language). I ultimately support a merge since she has gotten a lot of attention, but there is not a lot of information from reliable sources that can be used to write an article. Ewing's article can be merged without a loss of encyclopedic information, so I believe that this would be the best outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which "repeat the same language" (i.e. wire stories) count as just one for notability purposes. EEng (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is something to be said about how she is covered in mainstream press for her longevity, which doesn't exactly lend itself to lots of coverage outside of that one event. Delta13C (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per notability guidelines and WP:NOPAGE. First, a handful of human interest pieces from local newspapers and an obituary do not indicate notability. If it did, then every used car salesman in any small town would become notable after they passed away. Second, this is a permanent stub comprised of nothing but a DOB, DOD, a single bullet-point regarding her being the oldest yada yada in yada yada, and a bunch of trivial unencyclopedic information. It's classic list material. ~ Rob^Talk 03:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and I would've also accepted redirecting to the list of supercentenarians as regardless there's simply not anything for a better solid separate article. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E, known only for being old, and not even very notable for that. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 14 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 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QOwnNotes[edit]

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

Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources to suggest this software is notable, fails WP:GNG. Also doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT and WP:NSOFT. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would "significant coverage in reliable sources to suggest this software is notable" be to be mentioned on Wikipedia? Most applications on Comparison of notetaking software are projects of individuals and QOwnNotes is free open source, has its user base and is a non profit project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitlion (talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS - generally, 2 or more references to reliable, independent sources are needed to establish notability. The coverage must be substantial (a paragraph or more) rather than an incidental mention.Dialectric (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently nothing to suggest better yet, draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:40, 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. Sandstein 08:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Ministers-President by longevity[edit]

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

There is no intersecting topic between being leader of a German State at some point and how old someone gets before dying. We might as well list them by height or length of marriage or any other arbitrary criteria unrelated to term of office. No sources. Fails WP:LISTN and redundant to whatever lists of office holders these people are on already. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrary and not encyclopedic. But why are you nominating each of these lists separately? Pburka (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Ministers-Presidents by longevity. Star Garnet (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a 3:3 split vote 5-6 years ago with no rational stated in the close. Best argument advanced was OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Legacypac (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far from it. User Dewritech's two inputs are the most articulate comments I have seen for the concept that make this and similar lists. While you apparently dismiss/disagree with this with your recent slew of AdD nominations (as is of course your right), it is apparent from the six other nominations that I am not alone in holding this opinion with regard to the subject matter passing LISTN. Star Garnet (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dewritech argued that older politicians are more likely to have more written about them, and to have published more of their own reflections. This is an interesting argument, but it's purely hypothetical. To demonstrate that this topic is notable, we would need to see that independent sources discuss longevity of politicians as a group. In none of the discussions I've seen—past or present—has such evidence been presented, nor have I found any myself. Pburka (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/ Trout Slap Nominator for Mass Nominations Without Consensus This is an encyclopedic topic that is perfectly appropriate as a standalone article. The broad consensus in the other mass nominations has been for retention and there's nothing different here; All we have is the apparent hope that editors will be confused by the sheer excess of these abusive mass nominations. The only argument offered by the nominator is WP:IHATEIT. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn needs a fire extinguisher for his pants over his constant miscarctorizations of my editing and success rate at AfD. Lay off the personal attacks already, try citing some sources where this topic is discussed in any RS or find a new hobby that does not involve harassing me. Legacypac (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac appears to be protesting way, way too much. There are several AfDs all started simultaneously to address the same set of articles regarding national leaders by age all started at the same time; None of them have had any success. Calling another editor a liar is in disturbingly bad faith for an editor who has made repeated claims about others. My suggestion for a New Year's resolution stands; Nominate one article at a time, make your case once (and only once, without monopolizing AfDs) and wait to see what consensus brings. Why not start now. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When some editors have no policy basis to support their [redacted] opinion, often these [redacted] editors turn their guns on the nomination. Alansohn misleading is stating the unknown results of open AfDs here. If you nominate 1 the critics say 'what about the others like it'. If you nominate 4 very similar the critics say you are 'dominating AfD'. I've courtesy warned this several times already nicely because he is a high edit count editor, but on the flip side as a high edit count editor they should know better the to engage in such poor behaviour. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect Per WP:NLIST, there are no sources to suggest that the topic covered by this list is notable. Perhaps some lists in the nature of "List of x with attribute y" are notable. There's no overarching consensus on the matter. See WP:NOTESAL. But even if some are, this one ain't. David in DC (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a form of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Lists of people by some attribute can easily be created by querying wikidata. Such queries can be incorporated into the article about the notable relation between a topic's subjects and a particular property. Then you can have a list of German/French/US/whatever heads of state by, for example: height. After all, There seems to a height-success association. Mduvekot (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:LISTCRUFT Legacypac (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and not a defining characteristic. A pointless list. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:57, 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 speedy delete. blatant spam and paid advocacy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LegnoHomeItalia[edit]

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

Looks like the subject doesn't meet WP:COMPANY and also doesn't seem to have got significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 11:30, 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) 00:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atongko (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable movie. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

year:(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)

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Atongko movie" "Masud Rana" "Nur Uddin Mollah" "Jiaul Hoque" "Habibur Islam"

Delete for failing WP:NF. Assuming the thing exists and was released in Assam as asserted, I could find no coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; concur with above. Unless references (probably in Bengali) are provided to establish notability, this is considered non-notable. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF and lacks reliable third party sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:47, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Adams (voice actress)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Working voice actress, no starring/significant roles. Sending WP:APPNOTE to AngusWOOF. Boleyn (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her only lead role so far was substituting for a starring character in Winx Club (see my talk page for extensive discussion). Her Pokemon roles aren't starring. That doesn't leave much else to keep this around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? I have resume and her voice123 profile. And yes Adams play it a lead chracter in winx but for 3 eps!--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". That's just one and it wasn't significant. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stella is clearly a main character but I don't see occasionally replacing the characters actuall actress as being a significant role.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot locate anything that shows notability, she really hasn't done enough work/got enough big roles. Esw01407 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft and userfy if needed as this is unlikely solidly notable for the creative biographies notability guidelines yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage, and doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:50, 14 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.

Why my articel deleting?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early, since the nominator was blocked for disruption and socking, and nobody else expresses a preference for deletion. Can be renominated by any serious editor. Sandstein 16:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dysgenics[edit]

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

Vote: Delete. This is not an actual scientific term, but a thinly veiled attempt to insert Racist content into Wikipedia. Absolute nonsense. ---Love, The Lord and Sovereign of Truth

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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator is currently blocked for disruptive editing. (Not having read the article, I offer no opinion on the deletion request.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to fix rather than delete this article. Richard Lynn, who is cited in the article, is indeed rather racist in his works; that is presumably what the complaint was about. The concept of dysgenics, whether it is a valid theory or not, is worthy of note/discussion. Matthewslaney (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, of course. Also, speedily close please, on grounds of this having been submitted by a sockpuppet account to begin with. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:24, 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 keep. WP:SK2 - Disruptive nomination by a now-blocked sockpuppet. If there is an issue here that requires deletion a good-faith renomination can be made, but this is not that nomination. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nations and intelligence[edit]

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

Vote: Delete. Why does this page exist? It is entirely the same page as Race and Intelligence and is a thinly veiled promotional piece for 2 long discredited racist authors.Lord and Sovereign of Truth (talk) 05:51, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not the same page, so there is not copyright infringement. Also the topic is a bit different - different nations, versus different races, though these is a bit of overlap. It looks to be enough distinct material to justify a separate article rather than a merge. Although Rindermann gets a bit of a mention, it is not excessive, and mentions can be removed and just turned into references. Checking several references, the topic is not a hoax, and the topic is notable. So the basis for the nomination is completely flawed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator is currently blocked for disruptive editing. (Not having read the article, I offer no opinion on the deletion request.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content

Obvious Delete because I want to assume good faith, I have to assume anyone who votes Keep has not actually read any of the article carefully and has merely glanced at it for a second or two, not long enough to see that it is not English prose, not actually provided any grounds for its claims. Let's read some of the prose from this article, starting right from the top:

"The measurement, correlates and cause of average intelligence score variation between nations has been a controversial issue in the fields of psychology and economics. " This is extremely poor English and has no clear meaning

"It has been shown national intelligence correlates with GDP, health, fertility rate and other variables. " This has not been shown, and there is no reference for this "showing". What, may I ask, is "national intelligence?" And the fact that two things are "correlated" is hardly notable in itself, even if it were true, since the causation likely works in the reverse of what the author is implying by innuendo. and none of these alleged correlations are referenced whatsoever. Once again the English is at the level of an illiterate 3rd grader. The author of most of the article has been asked to stop editing English Wiki articles because he is incompetent to do so.

"Both environmental factors, including different stage of Flynn effect caused by difference in nutrition and health, and educational attainment, and genetic effect could explain the differences. " sheer unsourced speculation. Who says they could explain the differences? The differences have not even been reasonably shown to definitively exist and they are obviously the effect of wealth differences (hint: this is why people pay for education and medical care, for instance). The Flynn effect itself is highly controversial and cannot be just mentioned as if it is some obvious truth. And I have no idea what the author means in saying "different stage of Flynn effect caused by difference in nutrition and health" there are far too many grammatical errors here to count. No one is ever going to fix all the erroneous grammar and unsourced info in this page. It must be deleted.
"It has been argued that environmental improvement in developing countries could lead to narrowing of IQ difference." It has? By whom? What the hell is "environmental improvement"? How can any of you believe the author of this sentence should get their article kept when he cannot write an English sentence without multiple grammatical and factual errors if his life depended on it? "Could lead to narrowing of IQ difference?" This is the prose you want in your English encylopedia? Machine translations of Chinese fortune cookies would have a greater claim to inclusion.
"The first attempt to estimate IQ score among nations across the world has been the 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen." Says who it is the first attempt? IQ "score"? "Among nations across the world?" "Has been the 2002 book?" There are almost a dozen grammatical errors in this sentence, and it merely takes a not notable book by fringe pseudoscientific theorists and deifies it as the final word on the subject
"IQ estimates in that book has been updated and validated by international student assessment studies in works by themselves and others (see #Studies of national cognitive ability)." Again, mere say-so by the authors to spread their racist innuendo. "Has been updated and validated?"in what way, updated and validated? According to whom? It has not been validated by anyone. "Works by themselves and others?" This article is pure, utter nonsense. Read a sentence at random and you will find multiple grammatical errors, unspucrced claims, and vulgar pseudoscientific gibberish. The Nominating author is correct. This article is a blatant hoax, by an obviously incompetent editor who should not be allowed to continue editing here. Its methods and conclusions have been criticized by a number researchers.[1] 2600:1017:B429:59DC:24B3:6E45:B269:663 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked as obvious block evasion by nominator (per WP:DUCK and by geolocation to same place as one of the IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/World Champion Editor). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content above collapsed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as a nomination by a sock puppet, almost regardless of the other merits. The nomination is based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT and fails on that basis. The article has references and passes WP:GNG, but the nominator seems to wish to delete any articles they disagree with, certainly the sock master behaves in this manner. Fiddle Faddle 14:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:24, 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. Sandstein 08:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oran derby[edit]

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

See WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. The one reference provided is sadly a dead link. A search of 'Oran derby' or 'Mouloudia & Jam'iya derby' does not seem to bring much more than Wikipedia mirrors and YouTube videos. I've got a feeling that this might actually be a genuine rivalry but I think finding sources will be difficult and it looks like the two teams don't actually meet that often. Spiderone 12:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from WP:NOTSTATS issues, WP:NRIVALRY requires GNG to be met. Yes, these teams have played a number of times, but that in itself does not create a notable rivalry. I see no indication of significant, reliable coverage of the the notion of a rivalry between the two clubs. Fenix down (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article concerne a rivalry between two of the famouse clubs in Algeria and the best clubs of Oran (Football in Algeria). It's considered as one of some classicos in the country [25] [26]. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - those sources don't provide significant coverage of the rivalry itself:

This seems to simply be a brief article acting as a prelude to a series of matches. The words "Oran Derby" in reference to a match between these two teams are there, but there is nothing in the source that could be used to expand on the enWiki article beyond WP:ITEXISTS.
This seems very similar to the previous source, but its focus is on the Algerian Cup. Again, beyond the fact that matches between the two clubs are called the Oran Derby, there is nothing in this article that discusses the rivalry itself. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No sorry, these two links expalin that this derby is one of the important matchs of the country. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 05:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It could probably be a small rivalry, but I can not see any significant coverage or enough evidence so I dont think it passes WP:GNG and it is not notable. Qed237 (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the great rivalries of the country (look just an exemple). --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, YouTube is not a reliable source. Secondly, the sources in this AfD do nothing more than confirm that the rivalry exists. They do little to expand on that; there is no in-depth discussion of the rivalry. Spiderone 18:09, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015 MLB games on FOX and FS1[edit]

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

A PROD was filed by Wizardman, however it was removed by a new user whose only actions were the removal of a dozen PROD templates. Instead of restoring the PROD, I am converting it to an AFD. The initial PROD rationale was "Useless list without lasting notability, overly specific to be of any use." The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing particularly notable about a list of Major League Baseball games grouped by the television network that broadcasted them. If kept, this would be a horrible precedent for the creation of more such lists. Other recent AfDs have deleted lists of individual broadcast announcers by NFL team and CFB bowl games because they are really an extreme form of fancruft. I believe the basic data of what TV network broadcasted which notable MLB games is typically already stated in the infoboxes for the Wild Card, AL and NL Championship Series, and World Series, and that is really all that is necessary. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability here. Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable listcruft Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a longstanding principle that Wikipedia is not TV Guide; maintaining lists of every individual baseball game that aired on one particular television network definitely falls afoul of that. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2015 MLB games on ESPN[edit]

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

A PROD was filed by Wizardman, however it was removed by a new user whose only actions were the removal of a dozen PROD templates. Instead of restoring the PROD, I am converting it to an AFD. The initial PROD rationale was "Useless list without lasting notability, overly specific to be of any use." The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing particularly notable about a list of Major League Baseball games grouped by the television network that broadcasted them. If kept, this would be a horrible precedent for the creation of more such lists. Other recent AfDs have deleted lists of individual broadcast announcers by NFL team and CFB bowl games because they are really an extreme form of fancruft. I believe the basic data of what TV network broadcasted which notable MLB games is typically already stated in the infoboxes for the Wild Card, AL and NL Championship Series, and World Series, and that is really all that is necessary. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing remotely notable about this list. Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable listcruft Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a longstanding principle that Wikipedia is not TV Guide; maintaining lists of every individual baseball game that aired on one particular television network definitely falls afoul of that. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 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).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Tree[edit]

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

She has a notable family Tree, but she can't inherit from it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -agree per nom, notability is not inherited and upon a quick search, I couldn't find any reliable sources that would support her own notability
Keep She was like a Kardashian of her time. She pops up in several journals and magazines from the time. If she wasn't notable, she wouldn't be in these journals. I've started adding the sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding journals and periodicals. She was in The New York Times, The Strand, The Sketch, the London Evening News... and many more. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article's starter. The page is a useful article and link in the British aristocracy series. As a member of the famous Beerbohm family she garnered much media interest during her life time. Jack1956 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject received international press over a period of many years. She married into the aristocracy and was the daughter of a leading actor of the day, Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject is sufficiently notable to have five portraits of her in the National Portrait Gallery (the notability of the sitter being the criterion for inclusion in the collection). Clearly merits a suitable Wikipedia article. Tim riley talk 09:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Given the wide range of mentions in several different news publications (and a few books too), there is notability there. - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination due to enormous improvement (even though I only see Kardashian-like celebrity). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarityfiend, permit me to say that I think your withdrawal is most gracious, and in the true spirit of WP editing. Best, Tim riley talk 15:09, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Monaco[edit]

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

No sources. Only operated twice in the 1950s and the winner never won anything else. The suggestion this can be expanded from Italian wikipedia is disappointing as the Italian article says exactly the same thing with no sources either. Fails WP:ORGIN and WP:GNG Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 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. Sandstein 08:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable compilation album, fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 00:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:49, 14 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Universal Masters Collection (Grace Jones album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable compilation album, fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 00:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Collection (Grace Jones album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable compilation album, fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 00:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:19, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Steelheads[edit]

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

Did not receive significant independent media coverage. A few quick mentions online: [27] [28] [29] Their most in-depth article is from portlandsports.com and gives some good info [30] JTtheOG (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient coverage. Article is about a team in a minor sport in the US; the league may warrant an article, but not necessarily the teams, as it is not that popular a sport in the US at this time. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 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 speedy delete, CSD A7 (an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Brook[edit]

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

Non-notable college student, fails WP:GNG, only claim to notability is an article in a college publication. CSD removed twice by WP:SPA (likely sock/meatpuppet) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm heavily debating closing this early and just processing it as a WP:SNOW scenario. A search brings up nothing to show that this person is notable per Wikipedia guidelines. There's an assertion on the talk page that Brook has won awards from the South Carolina Press Association, however a search for his name doesn't bring up anything, either under Joseph or Joe Brook. Offhand I doubt that these awards would count towards anything on Wikipedia since this primary source states that it was for work he did on a student paper. While there are some student-related matters that can give notability, it's extremely rare and would require some amount of coverage - which isn't out there. The only sources that have covered Brook appear to be entirely primary, which cannot show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think A7 would definitely apply. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems obvious, nothing better for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete-A7- Speedy tag removed not 2, but 3 times by Zarnacle as referred to in the nomination. Should be gone. No indication of notability. John from Idegon (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably by CSD A7: No evidence that this student is notable. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 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) 00:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FVN - Fraser Valley News[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable online newspaper. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the virtue of the deletion nomination, I want to mention that this article was initially tagged as a PROD, but the PROD was deleted by a new user, JB267, whose only actions were the removal of a dozen PROD templates. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator has not made any case that the topic is non-notable, so I don't understand the nomination argument. However, this article seems to be a C.V., and totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: "...took a break from...to teach night school...", "While trying to maintain an acting career...", "...was involved with fundraising..." Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the nominator, that's about as much a nomination statement as you'll find on many Afds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As written, this isn't even really an article about Fraser Valley News as a thing in its own right; in reality, it's a WP:COATRACK for the publisher's personal résumé. It cites no reliable source coverage to support any of it — the only reference here is a primary source citation to itself. And for added bonus, the article was created by User:Radiodon1 — the conflict of interest will become apparent if you check the publisher's name and résumé background again. All of which means that this isn't an encyclopedia article about a notable website — it's a self-published advertorial PR profile. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 03:31, 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 no consensus. Editors disagree about whether the amount and quality of recognition and coverage is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 12:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taije Silverman[edit]

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

Lacks notability as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) Lucas559 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability test for academics includes major awards -- of which, she has won the Fulbright fellowship. For creative writers, numerous media interviews and book reviews, as well as prize nominations, testify to notability. I would vote for keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.94.8.30 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 181.94.8.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about those awards: "Academy of American Poets - Anais Nin Award" is not on the list of awards presented by the Academy. A Google search shows a "Prize in Memory of Anaïs Nin" presented by the University of Maryland. I would go so far as to say that the way the award is described on the Washington College web bio (which is the ref for this) is misleading. However that claim doesn't appear in her U of Penn faculty page and she's certainly widely published -- has worked in film, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - Not enough cases presented above to keep or delete. Needs more attention. Lit1979 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — Lit1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Administrator note - Lit1979 started editing yesterday and went straight for AfDs. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the user talk page and the comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graig Weich and I'd encourage WP:AGF that Lit1979 is here to contribute positively.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also uncertain as I'm not entirely sure what to make of this so I will notify DGG who may have some insight with this familiar area. FWIW, I found some links at Books, News (this one was only a passing mention with her father), browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the marks of significance in poetry are mainly awards and journals in which the work appear. The awards are on the borderline of significant (McDowell Colony residency, esp.) but the journals, including Ploughshares, Poetry, and the Harvard Review is a clear keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC) (minor edit adding two journals 8 Jan).[reply]
Re: The Anais Nin Award - it is part of the Academy Awards, see here for an online accessible report. "In 1955, the Academy of American Poets established its University & College Prize program at ten schools. We now sponsor over 200 annual prizes for poetry at colleges and universities nationwide, and have awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars to thousands of student poets since the program’s inception. Many of America’s most esteemed poets won their first recognition through an Academy University & College Prize, including Sylvia Plath, Robert Pinsky, Louise Glück,Mark Strand, Mark Doty, Jorie Graham, Kimiko Hahn, Joy Harjo, Toi Derricotte, Li-Young Lee, J.D. McClatchy, Heather McHugh, and Charles Wright. "
Delete. WorldCat shows her "Houses are Fields" book only has double-digit holdings. I disagree with MSC above: journal publications in Ploughshares et al do not indicate clear keep. Rather, they are no different from a science journal publication, specifically, it is the citations thereto that count. Awards are likewise not significant. According to our long-standing conventions for humanities academics, this individual is not notable. Agricola44 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

With the utmost respect for Agricola44, I disagree. One doesn't cite poetry, especially in other poetry ("Ere lo^[1] our rocky sholes^{[2, 4:123]},") and poetry is not humanities either -- the quality of journals/anthologies published in is more important than anything, except library holdings of books. I agree that 100 (three-digits) would be a good dividing line for notability on that, but it is in 96 libraries which is very close and with the journals is enough for me. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If poetry is not part of the humanities (in the broad sense), then I don't know what it is. And yes, I think that's why evaluation of humanities by journal publications has never caught on here. But, I do know that mere publication in journals is not enough (I think there's near universal agreement on this). Books are indeed the main currency of evaluation and we conventionally go by rules of thumb that DGG has articulated many times, roughly: at least 2 books by reputable publishers (especially including university presses like CUP or PUP, etc) and having "good" institutional holdings (which, admittedly is open to some interpretation, but which is generally considered at least triple digits). Agricola44 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks to the article creator (unsigned) above on the prize clarification: I've removed the disputed tag for the article, though it's still misleading imo. The University & College Poetry Prizes are indeed awarded to student poets. It is therefore a minor award and distinct from the American Poets Prizes national prizes—though crucially User:Distancesarewhite seems to conflate the two. The editor makes no mention that this was an award for student poets at the University of Maryland, College Park only, and perhaps inadvertently, mis-names the award somewhat so as to mirror the naming structure of the Academy's major national awards. Anyway, Ms. Silverman may well be notable regardless: she's received other honours. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe relevant standard here is WP:CREATIVE, not WP:PROF; she's a poet, not a scholar of poetry. The most likely criterion is awards, and I see no awards of any sort except student awards. Fellowship for bing a poet in residence are not awards in the usual sense. In terms of her single book, it hard to judge poets by the extent of copies of the book, but it is her first and only book. There seem to be no formal published reviews. The praise from Natasha Tretheway is not a published review, but a blurb quoted in a blog posting advertising a bookstore appearance. This seems a clear case of Not Yet Notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's certainly an accomplished individual, and yet there is as yet nothing to help us say that she in any way meets WP:AUTHOR in terms of reviews or major awards. That is often the problem: Wikipedia has well-established benchmarks for notability, and many talented people may still fall short. As for the Fullbright, according to its wiki article approximately 8000 people receive a scholarship of some kind annually. I don't believe this would qualify as "a well-known and significant award or honor" for our purposes. Again, not that it is insignificant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I'm personally acquainted with a Canadian poet who does have a Wikipedia article. He's won some larger awards -- arguably, since Canada has a much smaller population -- and more importantly, he's had a couple of books published which have been the subject of reviews. And this is what surprises me about Ms. Silverman's case: apparent absence of any significant independent published reviews. If anyone can track some down I would be happy to change my !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Kenyon Review short piece - authored by a certain Chen Chen -- is something. If there was even just a few more like that... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another review of her work that appears in the Shinning Rock Anthology. Critic is Eleanor Wilner, MacArthur Fellow, author of 7 books, pretty reputable I think. On the topic of anthologies, another one where Silverman has work published is the VCCA's Anthology.--Distancesarewhite (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent new award, the 2016 Anne Halley Prize for Poetry see here (Note: Comment added by IP account 145.18.151.122, at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Presumably not COI. The newly -announced prize is garnering attention - public reading associated with the prize scheduled for April, likely to generate some press attention.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is an extremely distinguished list of publications, I mean, extremely selective literary journals have published a great many of her poems. This is what constitutes notability for a contemporary American poet. Plus the distinction of the University where she teaches, far more competitive to get that gig than most literary prizes. I think that the sum of her career puts her past WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, publications themselves do not render notability. There are selective science journals, policy journals, math journals, engineering journals, etc too, but it is their impact (per PROF c1) that matters, i.e. how they are "noted" by others referring thereto. Also, a peron's institution, even if Harvard, plays no role whatsoever in notability considerations. I would also quibble with you and DGG on another point. In this case, there isn't any meaningful difference between PROF and CREATIVE, since the currency of poetry is publication (unlike music, painting, sculpture, or some other areas) and since she is an academic. Your keep is based on a threshold level that is substantially lower than established convention. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

To the above, could you perhaps rephrase or clarify in another way your point about publications? To my ear, "publications themselves do not render notability" and "the currency of poetry is publication" sound a little contradictory? Personally, I find Silverman's work as a poet and translator (the latter of which seems to be largely dismissed in this discussion) exceptionally well published, particularly considering the high selectivity of the journals. Distancesarewhite (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not contradictory at all. In most intellectual areas, the currency is indeed some form of publication, e.g. journals in this case, in the sense that those are the academic "products" that everyone strives to produce. Publication merely shows that some particular editor or referee found a contribution to be acceptable. The WP threshold, however, is much higher. By longstanding convention, we require those products to further show that they have have been widely "noted" by peers or to have shown some other form of tangible "impact". Many studies have shown that most publications are never or hardly ever cited (see e.g. VanNoorden et al, 2014, Nature 514, 550-553 for a recent study pertaining to general science) – this is the segment that WP considers to be the "average academic" and which does not demonstrate notability. Consequently, the argument that someone like Silverman has published in a selective poetry journal is not a legitimate notability argument. The counter-argument is that poetry journals are hardly ever cited, which is true. But the counter-counter-argument is that that is the reason why we almost always evaluate this area according to institutional book holdings (another recognized sign of "impact"). My "delete" above was based primarily on the fact that the WolrdCat database shows that her book has fairly average holdings, according to our typical standards. Hope that clarifies my argument. Agricola44 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You seem to be judging her under WP:PROFESSOR, I argue that her publication record, accolades, and appointments qualify her under WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should be clear that appointment is entirely irrelevant. PROF or CREATIVE is semantic here. We all seem to agree that we're judging on publications and awards ("accolades" as you say). By our standards, the awards are obscure and the publications show average impact. Is there anything else that might give her a boost? Agricola44 (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I feel that you are misjudging her under academic rather than literary/poetry standards. You think that I, and User:Mscuthbert, User:Distancesarewhite are wrong. As there is some risk of slipping into WP:BLUDGEON, I suggest that we give other editors a chance weigh in, perhaps run their own searches, and assess Silverman's notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is open – our further debate poses no barriers to other eds weighing in. Did you not just argue a short time ago that "her publication record, accolades, and appointments" demonstrate her notability? How is that judging on "literary/poetry standards"? You're trying to wedge a strawman into this discussion. The bottom line is this: what we basically have is a person who has a certain record of publications and awards (as is the case for most intellectuals, regardless of their discipline) and I argue that these do not rise to a level significantly above average so as to constitute notability. Conversely, you seem to be debating semantics of what notability guidelines to use. What concerns me further are the typical flags one sees in such cases: the person is very early-in-career (in this case a lecturer) and the article has lots of web ephemera passing as sources (like the WordPress blog billed as a formal review) and lots of PUFF (like a lecture/book signing being used as support for the claim of being a well-known poet). I think this reflects a misunderstanding of notability requirements. Agricola44 (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

She has an MFA, not a PhD. You seem not to understand the difference between a creative artist who teaches, and an early career scholar. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:57, 14 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Bucher[edit]

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

I don't think he meets WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Seems to be doing well within his niche field, but I couldn't find enough evidence to establish notability. Notifying tagger, Abovethestorm. Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:59, 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 01:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) 20:13, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx Style Bob[edit]

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

Frankly I considered speedy and PROD here but only nominated for AfD in case they are any archived sources which would frankly be the only lifelines for this article as the best I found was only this and this, all passing mentions, and the currently listed one source is a passing mention exactly for that appearance. It's interesting how this article has stayed since August 2005 like this and yet has only ever gotten one source, and by looking at the few links I found, it's likely showing how notable he must actually be. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:05, 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 01:13, 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 speedy delete performed by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

জলের গান[edit]

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

A PROD was filed by Safiel with the rationale: "Article is about a band. Borderline for CSD A7, but I will PROD instead. As written, clearly does not satisfy the requirements of WP:NBAND."

The PROD was removed by an editor with no edits other than removing PRODs. Instead of reverting the edit, I am putting this through AfD, using Safiel's rationale. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thank user The Squirrel Conspiracy for nominating this and I concur with my own reasoning from the PROD that is quoted in the nomination. Safiel (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translate and wikify It's not about a band, it's talking about water music. Ueutyi (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I think this qualifies for A2 speedy deletion because, to my untrained eye, an article with the same title and contents exists at bn:জলের গান on the Bengali Wikipedia. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:32, 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 redirect to Miss Mongolia. (non-admin closure) ––Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Mongolia[edit]

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

There is no evidence this organization passes WP:ORGIN with the only ref pointed at a blog/fansite with a couple photos and a couple paragraphs. The local franchise does not inherit any notability from the global pageant. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Mongolia. I do not see this as a stand alone article. The Miss Mongolia Association sends representative to Miss International and Miss Earth pageants. The Miss Earth Mongolia and Miss World Mongolia should be consolidated into one article- Miss Mongolia.--Richie Campbell (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Mongolia. I think the same organization is handling the Miss International Mongolia and Miss Earth Mongolia. Artchino (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Miss Mongolia article states "This pageant is unrelated to Miss World Mongolia or Miss Earth Mongolia pageant." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 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 speedy delete as WP:G11 Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Friends of Arts et Métiers ParisTech[edit]

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

Article seems to be here to promote this, erm, promotional organization and act as an extension/duplication of their website. I don't see the slightest hint of general news coverage about them. Maybe someone will want to add a single line to the main École Nationale Supérieure d'Arts et Métiers as a sop, but this article definitely fails WP:GNG and should go. Sionk (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Andorra[edit]

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

This local business/organization fails WP:ORGIN and if you read the article, barely exists. The country is awesome (was great to visit) but the population of 85,000 restricts the size and impact of this business. The sources are a facebook page and one incredibly crappy snip-it from a random website. Legacypac (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:04, 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 01:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth DR Congo[edit]

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

This does not appear to even be an event, but rather they just handpick women to go to the Miss Earth event. One winner lives in the US since a young child according to her article. The links provided show that Miss Earth, Miss Universe and Miss World are major pageants. The final source is about Miss Earth generally, only listing a name and country, not this organization. Fails WP:ORGIN. Local franchises do not inherit notability from the franchiser. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:03, 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 01:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given no objections, can this be deleted? Legacypac (talk) 13:49, 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. After improvements were made. Sandstein 12:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. Stoddard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was previously nominated in July 2014 and was closed as no consensus. The keep votes in that discussion stated there were enough reliable sources out there to support keeping, but that the article needed to have them added. Neither of the people who voted to keep have done anything to improve the article since that time. As it currently stands, there is no claim of notability made in the article, and there is no evidence of notability within the article. It has been tagged as needing to have additional reliable sources in order to be able to verify the notability for almost five years. It has been tagged as needing evidence of notability since July 2014. None has been provided. Therefore, this article should be deleted as there is no claim or evidence of notability provided in the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the new citations which have been added, there are now multiple claims of notability in the article and they are supported by reliable sources. She now meets WP:GNG, so I withdraw my nomination and vote to keep the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WDAFD: Since there are those who have expressed support for deletion the AFD should not be closed as withdrawn at this time. Should they also withdraw their support then the nomination can be withdrawn. My opinion is that it will likely close as a Keep within the normal time period anyway --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was just making sure people knew I was no longer requesting deletion, regardless of what other people voted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article doesn't even mention she has regularly appeared on Fox News for years. The article needs expanded and sourced instead of deletion. Lack of cites in the article is not a reason for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no citations to demonstrate that she is notable, then yes, that certainly is a reason to delete. You gonna add any, or are you just going to insist that there must be some because you know she's notable? Hint - there aren't any in the article because there aren't any on the internet. 184.13.0.107 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I hope it gets deleted since she is a liberal. However, as a Wikipedia editor, I believe she very clearly and easily passes WP:JOURNALIST given that she "is widely cited by peers". A simple google search turns up a large number of cites by her peers; I stopped counting after the first couple pages of Google hits. In other words, the cites clearly exist. Once more, the fact that the clearly available cites have not been added is not a reason for deletion. This is perhaps the worst case of a WP:BEFORE failure I have seen. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they're so plentiful then why can't you be bothered to add them to the article? 184.13.0.107 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not my job. It was the nominator's job per WP:BEFORE. They exist. More than enough to pass WP:GNG. That is enough for Keep. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @VMS Mosaic: - would you mind listing a few of the cites by her peers? I'm not seeing a whole lot other than her own writings which are syndicated in various places. I might be looking in the wrong places. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VMS Mosaic, if I were an admin thinking about closing this thing (wait, I am!) I would not put much weight on your vote, since you supply no evidence whatsoever that she's notable. You assert it, but that's not the same. The burden is not on the nominator to prove that she's not notable--the nominator has indicated well enough why they think the subject is not notable. The onus is on you, and pointing at the previous AfD doesn't help much, since all the keeps there are variations of WP:LOTSOFGHITS. In other words, I urge you to add to the article or to the discussion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added a cite from a journalist/columnist (clearly a peer, though less famous) on an international news site talking about and quoting her per WP:JOURNALIST. Probably should have searched a minute or two more for a better one, but all the really good ones on the first couple google search pages have already been added. The point I have been trying to make (rather badly) is that the nominator could not possibly have made a real attempt at WP:BEFORE or else had no idea how notability applies to journalists. A lot of the delete !votes here are WP:JNN as already pointed out by JMWt. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles has been sitting there begging for additional citations to be added for nearly 6 years, but no one has added them. Sometimes a deletion discussion is a good way to light a fire under people such as yourself who claim and claim and claim that the topic is notable, but never bother to add anything to the article. It worked very well this time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the only reference recently added to the page which could be considered to be in any sense "citation by peers" is one on Huffington Post, which itself appears to be a blog which is syndicated from another fairly non-notable blog. The rest are obituaries of someone else, very brief mentions or reporting something she has written. The latter are not independent secondary sources, I'd argue. It seems to me that this person ought to be notable, but looking only at the relevant notability criteria and the available references, I'm not sure that she is. Nothing that I've found hits the "significant" level of coverage, in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why is even in question? Fails notability. BMK (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient referencing to assert notability Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable, per others. This is a very clear case. Delta13C (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable Curro2 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- These !votes are not really very helpful unless you can give some reasons for keep or delete as per WP:JNN. JMWt (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some new citations. She is known is conservative circles.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after additional improvements by user Vinegarymass91. notable, also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changing to keep 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)- the sources added by Vingerymass are the same sources I found and deemed insufficient for WP:GNG purposes back when I tried to PROD the article. Those sources are all either someone citing Stoddard (which ~~I am aware satisfies WP:JOURNALIST but~~ does not satisfy GNG), or trivial mentions of Stoddard. Plus the HufPo source, which if you read it is a rather critical reposted blog saying that Stoddard isn't acting as smart as she is or something like that (basically, HufPo bashing a conservative talking head over nothing in particular). 184.13.0.107 (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the political positions of the sources are relevant - clearly even if the HuffPost article is written by a political opponent, they've obviously decided that the subject is notable enough to be bashed. Which is itself a claim of notability. More of a problem is that HuffPost hosts and sydicated blogs, so there is a question as to whether this can be considered a Wp:RS. Given that this is the best that anyone has yet found, I'm not really thinking it is enough on its own. JMWt (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my meaning might have been unclear - I wasn't trying to imply that I have a problem with the article's political orientation, but the fact that it is not well written and, for all the verbiage, lacking in actual content. I'll see if I can track down the origin of the article. 184.13.0.107 (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It originated on the not-a-reliable-source website The Daily Banter as an editorial [31]. 184.13.0.107 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there appears to be a basic misunderstanding here regarding WP:GNG. WP:N states:

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
   It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific
guideline listed in the box on the right"

Meaning that if an article passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) (one of the things listed on the right), then it does not need to pass WP:GNG. If an article passes WP:JOURNALIST, then it passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). There appears to be some agreement here that this article passes WP:JOURNALIST, so WP:GNG can be ignored/does not apply. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry, I don't agree that it passes WP:JOURNALIST. Instead of asserting what other people agree on, how about explaining how these sources show the individual meets any of the four notability criteria there? I suggest that if one does not meet the WP:GNG then they're hardly going to meet WP:JOURNALIST so your substantive point is moot anyway. JMWt (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" - is the word "widely" the issue? She is clearly "cited by peers". I guess we can debate "widely". As someone else sourced, she "(c) has won significant critical attention" with the awards she has earned. I guess we also need to debate the word "significant"? VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, the only source we've been able to find that cites her at all is from HuffPo and is arguably not WP:RS. Others repeat what she's written, but that's syndication not citing. Where is a link to an award she has won? That could be something which gives notability, I agree, but I don't recall seeing anything about a journalistic award. JMWt (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added an infobox and citations for the two awards. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of those, she was merely a finalist, she didn't actually win. The other was a weekly award. Is a weekly award enough to pass JOURNALIST or is it more like an everyone gets at least one thanks for participating award that doesn't mean anything? I ask because journalism isn't something I know much about (as I mentioned somewhere or other, my interest in this article was because of WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up. IF a weekly award satisfies WP:JOURNALIST I have no issue with this article being kept. 184.13.0.107 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the sites where you got this information? Everything I found said they were annual awards by the DC chapter. I saw nothing about weekly, particularly given that they appear to be handed out at an annual banquet. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I failed my save vs reading comprehension. Pray forget I said anything :) 184.13.0.107 (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of them have links so anyone can check them. The "weekly" part is the category, not how often they are handed out. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person is on the edge of notability from what I have seen, but the Dateline Awards are enough to satisfy me that there's enough there to justify keeping the article. 184.13.0.107 (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After some good work by Vinegarymass91 passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:46, 14 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Grace Jones Story[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable compilation album, fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 00:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep per the Popmatters and Allmusic reviews that are currently presented in this article, as well as this source. 和DITOR E tails 05:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps as I also considered the listed sources and would still consider keeping but there may not be any better signs of a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 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.

[1] "Prange Still On Move After `Big Break'". Hartford Courant.

[2] "Prange's short game gets a break". Herald & Review.

[3] "Noblesville native Prange out to conquer Lost Marsh again". nwitimes.com.

[4] "Big Break Player Wins Futures Tour Event". (subscription required)

[5] "Prange gets a break". (subscription required)

[6] "Now or never for Prange". (subscription required)

[7] Mistake-Free Golf. p. 28.

[8] "Big Break player Prange wins Futures Tour event". USA Today.

[9] "JU hires 'Big Break' winner as women's golf coach". The Florida Times-Union.

[10] "Golfers catch 'Break' on TV". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. (view both pages)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]