Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore hale parker

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

Unfortunately, I don't think this poet is sufficiently notable, probably because he died so very young. Pichpich (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One published book which appears non-notable plus is an unreferenced article. Searched links appear to be book sellers, not anything revealing about the book nor author.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heartfelt, but unfortunately not notable. In 8 libraries in WorldCat, no sources that I can find about him. LaMona (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few sources that bolster the subject's notability. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2006 SCSA season

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

Little content on any of these articles, and no reliable sources or any indication of notability provided. Cannot find any significant coverage from sources via Google search or other outlets, meaning these articles likely do not meet WP:GNG. QueenCake (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nominator. All of the articles have barely any content, and there does not appear to be any reliable sources to expand the article. Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be a very obscure racing circuit. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator, not notable, no coverage. Preaky (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Norman

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

A endorsed PROD was removed (contested) without any motivation. This footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL. Qed237 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Would normally suggest userfy but I don't think he's going to play for in a fully professional league soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tried searching for more sources to see if he passes WP:GNG- he was in the Norwich FA Youth Cup winning team, so I thought there could be sources about him. Couldn't find anything other than passing mentions, his name on team lists, and the articles on his loan to Woking. In short, he definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:51, 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 Keep as this seems clear (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Ferrer

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Cannot derive notability from parents and/or grandfather. Quis separabit? 22:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One season as a regular on Grey's is enough to solidify notability for me. These actor articles don't have to be lengthy; we have the basics for a stub, and it passes. Nate • (chatter) 04:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was regular on Grey's Anatomy.--Alrofficial (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I agree with the fact that notability is not inherited, significant roles on Grey's Anatomy and Extant, along with a leading role in the indie film, Abducted, make her qualify under WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Onel. Significant roles in multiple significant movies/TV shows. Clearly satisfies NACTOR#1. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keepper Onel passes WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Seats

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

Non-notable musician lacking substantial coverage in secondary sources to create an article. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 21:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 22:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 22:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 22:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No independent sources, no clear claim of significance as a musician, and the show he produces shows no evidence of being notable. I'm just this side of a speedy delete under CSD A7. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline speedy A7 candidate, definitely could've been prodded as an unsourced BLP. Since it's here - the subject doesn't meet the criteria set out in the either the general notability guideline, or the specific guideline for musicians. No sources found that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, quite unlikely notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Blythwood (talk) 07:37, 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. The one keep argument failed to provide any policy-based reason to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sara Mutschlechner

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

This doesn't sound notable enough to warrant an article. There has been a spate of road-rage shootings being covered in the news, but none of them have articles of their own as far as I can tell and I can't see what's so special about this incident. This doesn't even seem to have the national coverage necessitated. Parsley Man (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local news story with the usual morning show/human interest sources that are just repeating the same things over and over again. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not exactly road rage, more like a young Ne'er-do-well (discharged from the Marines 'under other than honorable conditions based upon the commission of a serious offense') who had a gun but no sense. Tragic story of the murder of an innocent girl, but as an article it falls under NOTMEMORIAL and fails WP:CRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because of the road rage angle. This is not a memorial article as it is very matter of fact and not written in a memorial way.BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have many other recent road rage stories in the news, yet none of those have articles, however. Why is this one so special? Parsley Man (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable. I haven't even heard of this in the news at all, meaning it must be a local event.

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbourne Health Centre

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

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}}.

Reads like a promotion piece, which relies a lot on primary sources. No evidence of notability. The creator's User name is AppliedCommunication, which makes me think there is a COI, potentially a paid editor. JMHamo (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this page is any different from the 519, [[1]], or theSt. Mike's page. This page is well cited and provides a brief overview of what SHC does and the effects of that work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AppliedCommunication (talk • contribs)

I disagree with the statement above, which recommends deletion. The article's page does not appear promotional (and a user's name is not sufficient evidence to indicate it is). Instead, it is informational and contains an adequate amount of secondary citations. Isaburo (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CU has confirmed Isaburo (talk · contribs) to be a meat puppet. The article creator AppliedCommunication (talk · contribs)'s !vote has also been struck as he was blocked by this SPI too. JMHamo (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article is promotional and reads like a directory entry or a company web page. In terms of sourcing, what it has working against it is that there are many mentions but I find nothing expressly about the organization that is substantial. Also, nearly all of the sources are local to the area the center serves, and we take off "notability points" for that, although in this case "local" is a large city. The LGBT and Rainbow work look interesting enough to save the article, but again I didn't find articles expressly about the organization. I checked many references, but admit I could have missed something. If ones could be brought to light then I think that with a great deal of editing it may be possible to save the article. LaMona (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I live about a block away from this institution, so I'm quite familiar with it. That said, the nominator and LaMona are both correct that this article, as written, is entirely too dependent on primary sources, with the reliable sourcing limited to glancing namechecks in coverage which isn't about the facility — but that's not how any institution, no matter how notable it might seem in principle, gets a Wikipedia article. Notability under WP:GNG is conferred by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable media sources that are independent of the topic, not by the topic's own self-published web presence or by passing mentions in coverage of other topics. I'd be entirely willing to vote keep if the article were sourced properly, but with this sourcing it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and LaMona , Fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In digging around for possible evidence of notability, I (a) found none; and (b) discovered a few articles related to this one that may also need deletion. One example is Supporting Our Youth (which has no real sources, other than the organization's own website), but there are others as well. I'm not sure how to nominate articles for deletion, but I thought this might be the best place to bring up the issue. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 21:56, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Worthington

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 19:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT. Smith(talk) 21:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, none of this suggests better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Preaky (talk) 11:48, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Tone

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

WP:BLP, actually an WP:AUTOBIO if you check the creator's username, of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC as of yet — while there are claims here that point in that direction, they miss. The criterion for charting hit singles requires an IFPI-certified commercial sales chart on the order of Nielsen or Billboard, but !earshot is a campus radio airplay chart which doesn't pass Wikipedia:Record charts — and the national or international touring criterion requires that the artist has garnered media coverage for the tour, but the sourcing for that claim here is parked almost entirely on blogs. All of the sourcing here, in fact, is to sources that fail WP:RS for one reason or another: some are primary sources; some are blogs; some are interviews with the subject, which are okay for supplementary confirmation of facts after an article has already been sourced over GNG, but cannot count toward demonstrating notability; some are community weekly newspapers in his own local area, which would also be okay for supplementary confirmation of facts but aren't widely distributed enough to get a person into Wikipedia if they're the best you can do for sourcing. And even the one source here that does count as a fully legitimate one in a musician's article, Exclaim!, in this instance just namechecks his existence a single time in an article about somebody else, and thus still fails to constitute substantive coverage of him. So there's no basis to claim a WP:GNG pass here either — at best, this is WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article about somebody who may well become eligible for one in the future, but hasn't cleared the bar yet as of today. Delete, without prejudice against recreation (by somebody not directly affiliated with the artist's own PR machine) in the future if and when his notability and sourceability get better. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than a few local news mentions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability as musician. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC, and searches turned up nothing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Darwin Singh

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

Whilst curating this page, I put an A7 speedy deletion which was removed as there was assertions of significance within the text. Trouble is, I had researched the name on Google before placing the A7 tag, but I found only one or two primary sources and a confidence trickster of roughly the same name. With no inline citations, or indeed any citations (except from one, which doesn't prove significance as an automatically generated website), there appears to be no evidence of notability beyond that stated in the article with no evidence to back it up. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is quite obviously not yet set for a notable article. Notifying taggers Shirt58, Jikaoli Kol and Adam9007. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is self-promotion. Curro2 (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a no-brainer. Blythwood (talk) 07:38, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Pippy

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

Only two sources in the article, and both are fairly trivial mentions and not the most reliable sources. My own searches turned up nothing better to improve article. Appears the article subject doesn't meet WP:GNG pr WP:BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I did find some sources, they appeared to have been written by (or copied by) the same person who produced this web page. cf here and here. So in addition to not saying much, it may be a copyright violation. LaMona (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not currently better solidly satisfying its notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no brainer. Fairly blatant hype/promotion. Quis separabit? 05:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches show it fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 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 delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Rebel

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

Fails WP:NCORP. List of awards are all local (and generally not wins); only two of the significant third-party sources listed focus on the company, and only this one focuses on the work they do; the Globe&Mail piece is just using them as an example of a paperless office. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned and this is how it should've happened at the 1st AfD had I noticed it at the time. None of this currently suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, a company is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists — but nothing here constitutes a strong claim of notability under WP:CORP, and the sourcing isn't solid enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changes were made to meet guidelines --GastownBlogger11 24:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those are still likely not enough for a solid notable article. This can be drafted and userfied if you wish, SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - neutral on this, but the linked article on its CEO also looks non-notable. It mostly cites articles on this company and not-really-that-great sources e.g. finalist in an entrepreneurship competition and being on a '40 under 40 in Vancouver' list. Blythwood (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Evening with...

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

Very little context, but there does not seem to be any real assertion of notability for this series of productions. The phrase "An Evening with..." is very common and wasn't coined for this production series, and the article looks like an attempt to promote said series. There are no sources at all, since the official site is dead and there has never been any independent sources since the article was created 8 years ago. bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth mentioning that the user who created the article was blocked for operating sockpuppets, all of whom were mainly concerned with promoting Marc Sinden, the person behind this production series. So it's a promo piece from start to finish. --bonadea contributions talk 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marc Sinden as this event is already mentioned on his article with as much information as exists on this separate page and because The One Night Booking Company already redirects to Marc Sinden. The article for the individual seems well referenced, but there's no evidence given for separate notability of this event night so leave it on his page as it already is. -Markeer 21:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wouldn't disagree with a redirect, I simply think that this term is too nebulous to represent a valid search. Clearly the article does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masih Farzaneh

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this better suggests a better acceptable encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:48, 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 as hoax per my comments below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Odd Life of Amy Letwis (film)

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

Contested Prod. Rationale for original nomination was the following As with The Odd Life of Amy Letwis all sources are to a blogspot, no sources indicate notability and awards listed are youth awards. Debatable as to whether this could ever meet WP:GNG. Contested reason was wide tv release. It is my believe that this still does not meet WP:GNG.

− Blethering Scot 14:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a strange one, given that they tried making a category page (which I deleted since there's only one item in it at this point in time) and they also made a template that claims that there are several video games based on the film/story. A basic search so far brings up nothing to suggest that any of this is legit, so I'm leaning towards saying that the video games are bogus. This also makes me wonder about the various awards and the TV airing claims. A look at the TAFF site for 2015 doesn't show that this film was ever up for any of their awards at all - or that there are any awards categories matching the ones next to the award ceremony name. I'll look into the other awards. I'm leaning towards this being a hoax (in that the film may exist but did not accomplish any of the claims in the article), especially as the film website is basically a nearly blank website that redirects you to a Blogspot account. It's just extremely suspicious that a film with these claims would receive zero coverage, either under the English title or the Spanish title, La extraña vida de AMY LETWIS. I also note that there was an entry for this film on the Spanish WP, but it was deleted there as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing goes for the page for Martina Rodriguez. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed my search for the English and Spanish titles. There's zero coverage out there other than Wikipedia and various primary sources - which are weak even by primary source standards. Also fairly telling is the near complete lack of junk hits, which gives off the strong impression that this was something someone came up with one day and tried to add to Wikipedia. A search for some of the awards or reviewers brings up little and what I can verify as existent (the TAFF awards) do not list this film as one of its nominees/awardees and in some cases, the award category doesn't seem to exist. I'm going to speedy this as a blatant hoax and block the article creator, since this appears to be their only contributions and it looks like they've done this on multiple WikiProjects. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 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. Everybody agrees this fails WP:FOOTY, but there is disagreement on whether it meets WP:GNG due to other sources presented here. Numerically, there might be enough deletes to call this a consensus to delete, but I don't see any of the delete arguments specifically addressing why the presented sources are not enough to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Carter-Vickers

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

Contested PROD with reason that Noted Carter-Vickers presence on the bench for Tottenham Hotspurs vs AS Monaco. This adherts to Wikipedia's notability requirements for sports players. The notice for deletion is no longer required. However, there is nothing notable about being on the bench and played fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. This article is just too soon. Qed237 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Kante4 (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -he fails NFOOTBALL but he definitely passes GNG. Joeykai (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How does he pass GNG? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Not sure he meets WP:GNG. Definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources for why I think he meets GNG. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. He was also in this Under Armour ad. Joeykai (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - some of the 5 references above are routine, however number 1 in particular meets WP:GNG, and possibly 2 and 3 as well. Here's another [7]. I assume his 5 appearances on the US Olympic squad playing in 2015 CONCACAF Men's Olympic Qualifying Championship doesn't quite meet WP:NFOOTY. Nfitz (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG --NextGenSam619^t@lk 07:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think he meets NFOOTBALL either but he definitely meets the GNG with articles specifically about him in the AP (reprinted in numerous other sources including the Boston Globe and Yahoo Sports), Sports Illustrated, Vice, and NBC, all major media sources: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Those alone I think are sufficient but there's plenty of other mentions in reliable sources: [12], [13]. Not qualifying for NFOOTBALL doesn't disqualify him under the GNG. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per [14], [15], [16]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FuriouslySerene fails WP:NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the sources above which, although there is some routine transfer / contract alk, also contain lengthy interviews and pieces on his career to date. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is well sourced but doesn't pass NFOOTY. Don't see as just why he's American playing in the premier league makes the subject pass GNG. Subject will most likely meet either requirements in the near future but per WP:CRYSTAL that isn't really a valid reason to keep it. Open to changing my opinion though. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:44, 16 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) sst ✈ 00:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 St Patrick's Athletic F.C. season

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

St Patrick's Athletic do not play in a fully professional league, so per WP:FOOTY consensus should not have a season article JMHamo (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say this passes WP:NSEASONS (Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.). This team plays in the top league in Republic of Ireland, and although the league is not considered fully proffessional it is still a top division club which I think is enough. Looking through WP:FOOTY I could not see this consensus? Qed237 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - club playing in a semi-pro league, does not meet GNG. Giant Snowman 18:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What GS said. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NSEASONS as this is a team in the top professional league in Ireland. Note that WP:NATHLETE explicity defines players having to be in fully professional leagues, but does not have the same requirement for team season articles. Also note that statement that the WP:FOOTY consensus is that there should not be a season article isn't backed up by the discussions in WT:FOOTY where it's been acknowledged previously that the top professional league doesn't have to be fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NSEASONS.--Donniediamond (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NSEASONS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:53, 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 speedy delete. WP:A7 (Web content with no indication of importance: the claim that it was made with a $50mil budget and box officed $380.4 million is blatantly WP:MADEUP.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Misadventures of Dora

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

Fails WP:NFILM with no secondary sources or claims of significant awards. BOVINEBOY2008 12:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to just be an amateur fan cartoon made in GoAnimate ("designed to allow business people with no background in animation to quickly and easily create animated videos"). --McGeddon (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GoAnimate WP:COPYVIO garbage. An A11 speedy deletion is highly advised and supported. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ProactiveRISK

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

Appears to lack sources to show notability. About half the references are press releases or similar. Once those are discounted there's not much left - mostly brief pieces talking to the founder about Heartbleed as part of larger articles, but nothing significant on the company. A search online turns up more of the same - a couple of brief mentions, some press releases, but nothing substantive. Bilby (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Tom Brennan, this seems to be a promo article with the same references as the founder. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and only redirect if the founder himself is solidly notable and acceptable but it certainly seems this article is deletion applicable as it is questionable for its notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Democratic Assembly of Yemen in Australia

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

Unreferenced. May not exist Rathfelder (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any kind of source about this. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either non-notable or not existent. Curro2 (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of existence. Frickeg (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the comments above. Aeonx (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 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 merge to Cumberland, Maryland. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 00:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Cumberland, Maryland

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

I don't think tourism in this area is significant enough to warrant an article. Most of these types of articles [17] are at the national level or on internationally well-known cities. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Selective Merge to Cumberland, Maryland, where this was split from back in 2007 (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and perhaps remind the creator that there is a Wiki for travel and tourism Wikitravel which is a more appropriate place for an article of this nature. LaMona (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future Problem Solving Program Australia

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

Unreferenced, promotional. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if this article were improved (by doing something radical like, say, adding some actual content), I'm not sure how it would differ from its parent article, Future Problem Solving Program International (which has decent content but is presently only referenced to the FPS website). Barring a pretty spectacular improvement of both articles, there is no justification for a content fork in this case. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Agree with Yeti Hunter. This a fork and the notability and content for it does not seem to justify it. Searches specific to the Australia effort show a handful of minor news articles only. Aeonx (talk) 10:14, 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, discounting the "as per @Necrothesp" comment! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Brobäck

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

Swedish teenager who attracted a couple human-interest stories by pitching an idea to build a skyscraper. Sources do not indicate anybody is actually building anything. If something gets built and the subject receives significant coverage this can probably be recreated. Blackguard 21:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @Necrothesp; subject fails notability and GNG. Quis separabit? 02:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't comment! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage is in a couple of small local papers and does not begin to meet WP:SIGCOV. I cannot find any mention of Brobäck elsewhere, so WP:GNG is unfortunately not met. Clearly a smart guy, I read the articles in the local papers with interest, and I'm sure he has a bright future, but it is too soon for an article. --bonadea contributions talk 15:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable yet. I also find creating articles on precocious children a bit embarrassing, since if they fail (by whatever criteria their haters prefer) to live up to expectations of their life having a Wikipedia article at 18 I find it all too easy to imagine it being used as a way to mock them. Blythwood (talk) 07:43, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of National Defense

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

This is not a notable book. It's been sitting around here for a while, lacking reliable sources and reviews, and it's time to go. I searched ten pages of Google hits and found nothing but Goodreads and Amazon and an occasional mention on a blog, the most notable of which is this single mention, which isn't a review and lacks the kind of depth we need for a book to be considered notable. Google Books also does not provide evidence that the book has been cited and is thus notable; here is a journal article that cites one of the contributions in the book but, again, that's not enough. Finally, the only review included in the article is by Lew Rockwell (this is the correct URL), and Rockwell is...yeah, the guy who runs the joint that published the book. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see now this has been nominated before, but in that AfD I do not see valid keep arguments. Protonk laid out some conditions for keeping it, which Mathmo somewhat oddly sees as a reason to vote keep--but those conditions were never met (no reviews). Supposedly the book was reviewed here, but that link is dead and a publication by a thinktank (in this case Centre for Independent Studies) hardly qualifies as an in-depth review published by a reliable source. Finally, this was proposed as a review and a reason for notability, but it's just another blog. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the "dead link" review (or at least the first three paragraphs of it): [18] Plenty of "think tank" sources are quoted from and used as sources on Wikipedia. The book review is at least 4 paragraphs long, and is by a named academic. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe the last point is relevant. Rockwell is a scholar, and his review should contribute toward showing that the book is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Scholar or not, he has a serious conflict of interest which taints any objectivity the review may have. It's essentially like a blurb written on the publisher's invitation. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, it's not an important point. Many reviewers have a stake, one way or the other, in the books they review; that's not unusual at all, and does not mean that such reviews don't help to show the book is notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a widely cited book, by academic sources, a few examples being : [19]; [20]; [21]. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that that's "widely" cited--one can argue that Sechrest acquires some notability because his article is cited in your first two examples. The third example is a bit sloppy. Sure, there's plenty more mentions, but this one also doesn't actually cite the book, and this is a Festschrift that only mentions the book. We can quibble over precisely what "widely cited" means, and maybe we should--I don't think those Google Book hits prove it. Do any of your sources discuss the book in depth, not just mention one of the articles?
  But what is especially damning is that there seem to be no reviews at all. The best that JSTOR has to offer (besides two obligatory mentions in the Journal for Ayn Rand Studies), for instance, is a single mention in a footnote: "Other recent works in this tradition include Hoppe (2003)" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4027093). So no, I don't see it. Drmies (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per When Other Legends Are Forgotten. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Current and suggested sources fail WP:NBOOK. Lew Rockwell's conflict of interest is substantial here. There's wiggle room for this kind of thing, but this is not just a passing association or professional relationship, but rather a review by the guy who founded and currently chairs the publishing company. That is a vested interest in promoting the book, which is fundamentally not independent, and cannot be used for notability per WP:GNG. Being cited in a few other books doesn't establish notability, either, as they are only a few extremely brief mentions in long lists of other mentions. Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Grayfell. This is an obscure book published by a minor think tank which isn't prominent in commentary on defence issues. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks as though Rockwell's review was given as reason to keep the article last time around which as Grayfell points out above is seriously problematic. If we take that review out there simply isn't enough independent coverage to meet NB or the GNG. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly on the basis of the 2004 book review in Policy (the journal of the Centre for Independent Studies), part of which is readable here [22]. It suggest that the subject matter of the book held particular significance at that time, and, even though the journal has a political agenda contrary to that expressed in the book, the review still described the book as "most fascinating and horizon-widening". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find, but I don't think the Centre for Independent Studies' political agenda is clearly contrary to that expressed by the book. Does the paywalled part of the review say otherwise? Both advocate for free-market, small-government, libertarian views, so that seems a bit odd. Regardless, it's still only one usable review, and NBOOK calls for two and the other coverage is very thin. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Centre for Independent Studies is a right-wing and quasi-libertarian Australian think tank. Its self-published newsletter is unlikely to be a reliable source, and as an organisation it shares many of the same views as the US think tank that published this book. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other concerns may be reasonable, but one cannot deem the source irrelevant because of the viewpoint of its authors. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it means that the review doesn't count towards this meeting criterion 1 of WP:NBOOK (a guideline I generally dislike given it sets an awfully low bar for notability). Like-minded think tanks reviewing one another's books in their newsletters doesn't contribute to the books being notable. If a Centre for Independent Studies employee/associate had authored a review published in an independent source (eg, a newspaper) it would be different. Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the book review is a noted academic, not a "Centre for Independent Studies employee/associate". "Self-published newsletter"? I see no evidence that the publication's aims is simply to detail the doings of the Centre for Independent Studies - so it is not a "newsletter". "Self published" is meaningless. Of course it is self published - it is the journal of the organization! The Times and The New York Times are also self-published! Also, saying that this thinktank and the publisher or authors of the book share the same viewpoints is like saying Bolsheviks and National Socialists shared the same viewpoints because they both liked oppressing people and building grandiose neoclassical architectural pastiches! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If curious, I found the entire article on the journal's website as a PDF here: [23]. It's more critical than the summary implied, but only as a matter of degree. I may be reading this wrong, but it looks like Worldcat lists three or four libraries that keep physical copies of Policy (ISSN 1032-6634). This suggests to me that its a very minor journal or newsletter. Grayfell (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Curro2 (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a myth that this meets NBooks or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's in only 28 libraries according to WorldCat [24] Can't possibly be influential it f it is that poorly known. Not even worth a redirect to the author. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete. I've looked at all the external links presented in this discussion, and I'm not seeing anything that establishes notability. Even if one considers the Policy piece an acceptable, third-party review, that's only one; and WP:BKCRIT is not satisfied by a single review in an obscure publication. Deor (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing simply not strong enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:48, 17 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. If anyone wants to create a redirect for the title, he or she is free to do so. Deor (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Refugees Welcome

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

Notability and OR issues. Notability is not established within the article itself, and a google search and google image search for "Syrian Refugees Welcome" (including quotes) does not yield anything useful either. I am aware that the more inclusive "Refugees Welcome" is used quite widely, but that seems to be a topic for a different article. Yaan (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to European migrant crisis Curro2 (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Curro2, Note that the edit comment for this !vote says "delete and redirect". Unscintillating (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an obvious content fork and does not stand as an independent subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 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 keep. Sandstein 12:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alta View Hospital hostage incident

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

Reason GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks notability and would qualify for WP:SPEEDY deletion under category A7.

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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 12:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvement. The incident certainly go major news coverage: [25], in-depth and across the country: [26] , [27]. Moreover , there was a TV film: [28] Looks notable to me. Keep as per WP:CRIME. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this event got plenty of attention. and passes WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The news coverage seems pretty sparse and contemporaneous to the event. Not every crime that has ever occurred and ever been reported on needs its own page in an encyclopedia. I don't know what WP:CRIME has to do with anything, as that is about individuals, not events. "Looks notable to me" and "event got plenty of attention" are even more worthless as justfications for keeping (one day in my dreams people who regularly do that will be banned from AfD discussions). More pertinent is WP:EVENTCRITERIA and the following subsections of WP:NOTABILITY. Lasting effects? Depth and duration of coverage etc? Hardly. The existence of the TV movie about the event might help, but it's clutching at straws, surely. N-HH talk/edits 12:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are creating a strawman... You basically say, the article is within the criterias. But so are other articles as well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply. Everything you point out, points towards notability, but still you say it is not enough. Just weird in my opinion. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, I'm saying it's not within the criteria, which are based on "whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting" etc etc. I have no idea where strawman arguments or otherstuff come into anything I said. N-HH talk/edits 16:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I find it very easy to imagine this being a case study in courses on psychology and women's health e.g. as a case study of a husband's violent response to his wife's reproductive choices, so a Wikipedia article on it sounds like a good idea. Few more citations wouldn't hurt, though. Blythwood (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The TV film is certainly enough. (even without it, the motive for the killing was enough to get national attention) . DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Google gives me some post-2000 references that are outside the normal news cycle for the event, plus having sufficient notoriety to form the basis of a TV movie also falls under the category of ongoing coverage or a demonstrated cultural impact. Also, SPEEDY A7 (the nominator's deletion justification) does not apply: A7 explicitly relates only to a "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event" – this was an event/occurrence, not an organised event. (The article needs a tone clean-up to make it more encyclopedic) Aspirex (talk) 05:55, 16 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) 00:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to build from source

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A "failure to build from source" is exactly that: a failure to build a computer program from its source code. Little else can be said about this without original research; the only GBooks hit I get for this term is a glossary entry. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A simplistic dictionary definition. We don't need embedded Linux wikis inside Wikipedia. The existing ones do a fine job on their own. It looks like there are less than 40 Google hits for this phrase, which is not really a good sign for notability. For Linux content, one would expect to find sources online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems pretty clear, per WP:NOTDIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 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 no consensus . -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been requested to provide a more detailed close. Numerically, there's no overwhelming weight of !votes in either camp. While the !deletes were in the majority, there were some sources presented which purport to establish notability, and were not disputed. The argument that this has been deleted from the Maltese wiki carries little weight, since each language wikipedia has its own policies and standards. On the other side, the argument that this must be notable because of involvement from royalty doesn't carry much weight; we're looking for reliable secondary sources, not making our own value judgements about what's important. In a nutshell, I don't see a convincing argument to delete, nor do I see a convincing argument why this must be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King's Own Band

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND, WP:GNG or any other aspect of notability. It seems it was deleted from Maltese Wikipedia, but I can't find the link (just comment by creator that it was already on Maltese WP). Last AfD attracted only one comment - hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll repeat what I said last time. Has the rare honour of being named by the King himself and having a banner presented by the Queen. Given the fact that brass bands are a major part of Maltese public life, I think this qualifies as sufficient notability. Needs a good copyedit though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (mention and redirect to Edward VIII's article, as its history and age would certainly make it notable and acceptable but my searches simply found nothing better than this and the article has existed enough time for it to be improved. Draft and userfy at best until a better acceptable is made. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Edward VII, and it's hardly relevant to his article. His connection is relevant to the band; the band's connection isn't relevant to him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 22 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 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can either of you back upyour claims of notability by citing which guidelines you think it meets? It is no way meets the 12 criteria in WP:NBAND. It doesn't meet WP:GNG. The nearest in WP:ORG would be where it looks at longevity: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. The lack of reporting in the sources we would need to establish notability negates this one. Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per longevity and notable achievements (first band to perform the National Anthem). Usable references would seem to include http://www.clubmirror.com/?page=features&feature=86, https://books.google.com/books?id=ofZxsQiFsAgC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=king%27s+own+band+malta, http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-832032 (not official CNN material, but...), and https://ec.europa.eu/malta/news/week-full-activities-celebrate-europe-day-malta_mt. I'm adding one to the article now that's particularly relevant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment may well be notable in itself with better sourcing. Even if deleted some of this content could certainly be moved onto the military band article. Blythwood (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful content into the king's article. If further, better sourcing can eventually be found (I looked a bit, and found nothing), then it can be recreated. However, I doubt that will happen, since as the nominator notes, the article has even been deleted from the Maltese WP. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 06:27, 17 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) 00:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of best engineering colleges in madhya pradesh

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

The existance of this list violates WP:NOTOPINION. In addition, it seems to be intended as advertisement Müdigkeit (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 12:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is in poor shape, but the topic isn't necessarily unencyclopedic if the rankings come from reliable sources. For an example of a good article on a similar topic, see Rankings of universities in Canada. Pburka (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally subjective. Curro2 (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing salvageable. If anyone wants to do a proper list of engineering colleges with ratings etc it would be better done over. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sourcing, bad title. ansh 666 01:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. A source search for "madhya pradesh engineering ranking" turns up this ranking that does not even class the one that is claimed as #1 by the article, hence raising suspicion of promotional material. I am not saying careers360.com is a reliable source for the ranking, I just want to point out that at the very least the ranking used should be specified and picked carefully. Tigraan (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources exist to make anything in this list able to be improved or saved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:38, 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 delete. Much as I dislike people simply linking to guidelines instead of saying how the subject does not meet the guidelines, the proposal is uncontested here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Osman

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable player who fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:57, 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. Unopposed. Sandstein 18:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DraftSight

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

I can't find any reliable sources covering this software. Sam Walton (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 04:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests a currently better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the refs in article include what appears to be an independently published book on Draftsight, Shih, Randy H. (2012). Exploring DraftSight. SDC Publications. Do other editors have reasons for not counting this source towards notability? Dialectric (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Somehow totally overlooked that reference. Not sure on its reliability; can't find any discussions about the publisher on Wikipedia. The website implies that it's run by one person and anyone can write for them, providing they know what they're talking about. This leaves me unsure, though I'd still want to see more than that one textbook. Sam Walton (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -the article relies too heavily on one source that doesn't seem to be reliable, let alone its lack of coverage elsewhere. The article itself isn't that well done as it's mostly just a lengthy bullet list. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a review of DraftSight in Cadalyst that looks promising as an RS. --Mark viking (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:38, 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. Sandstein 18:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ufedo Sunshine

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

I can't find any evidence of notability perhaps, WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned as none of this even comes close to suggesting notability for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC, as per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would normally delete this article which got two delete votes (plus that of the nominator) and no keep votes in a week. However, the article is about a Nigerian actress (African sources are scarce), she apparently shot in a number of films, so relisting in a hope someone could make an effort finding sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de Rotary

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCYC with respect to individual races/events. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete so far it's a one off event for charity for a local rotary club. Very insignificant cycling event. LibStar (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 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 the consensus is clearly to delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gangwan

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article was deleted by the PROD process on 2 January 2016 for this reason but has been recreated by the same person as first time round. Sitush (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this group even exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lives Matter

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG- did not find any additional sources in google news or google books. The only sources not from the Blue Lives Matter site itself refer to an advertising campaign by Tactical Magic, not the site. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a quick Google search revealed numerous reliable sources. sst✈ 05:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an organization it appears to lack notability, as a phrase it appears to fall foul of WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding how one could possibly !vote delete given there are news articles in BBC Business Insider MSNBC, LA Times etc and so on. Seems textbook WP:SNOW. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: Those articles are discussing either an advertising campaign by Tactical Magic or a hashtag- none of them are about the organisation this article is about. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for rewrite not delete. JMWt (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's possible there could be an article here that passed WP:GNG if it was about something different that happens to share the name. That doesn't change my negative opinion of whether the current article (which is about something different to that mentioned in these sources) can pass WP:GNG. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how these are different thing: the reports I referred to above are about activity under the slogan "Blue Lives Matter", and there is an organisation set up under that name - presumably a lot of the activities have either been run by the organisation or the organisation has been set up in response to the actions. Either way, clearly there is a lot of fluff on the current page, but it could be rewritten to describe "the movement" with a reference to the organisation. And, I note, the non-profit organisation you are claiming is not notable is itself has been referenced in buzzfeed on Yahoo News and probably elsewhere. The organisation therefore likely meets the WP:GNG anyway. JMWt (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I found a few more sources: one from the Huffington Post ([29]) and one from the Philadelphia Magazine, a more regional source ([30]). Of note is the fact that both sources are critical of Blue Lives Matter. I also found two New York State representatives who offered support for Blue Lives Matter: [31] and [32]. The Blue Lives Matters website also contains a listing of some more of their media coverage: [33] (a lot of the sources are either local or come from websites like Pentrist, but there might be some more sources demonstrating notability). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Formally voting keep due to coverage in reliable sources. Also, from the available sources, it appears that Blue Lives Matter can refer to a phrase commonly used in protests and on Twitter, a pro-law enforcement campaign, and the organization that offers aid to police officers and their families. All of these subjects are heavily interconnected and I doubt it would be possible to truly separate them without a major loss of context, so its most logical to cover them in the same article. I think it would make the most sense for the article to be primarily about the overarching campaign since this is what the majority of the sources cover, but to also give due coverage to the slogan and organization. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Lives Matter. Curro2 (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no difficulty adding sources. May need cleanup as to whether it refers to the campaign, the organization, the slogan, or all three. Definitely needs additional material on criticism and support of phrase used as a reaction to Black Lives Matter. However, deletion is not cleanup. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search gives plenty of reilable sources that could be used to improve the article.78.145.111.217 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG: WaPo, Quad Cities, Palm Coast Observer, MSNBC, New York Post, HuffPo, USA Today, and KTLA. And that was just on the first two pages of a News search. Spirit of Eagle's point about a unified article is also spot on, imho. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 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 Delete. Unamimous consensus to delete. Some other similar articles were mentioned in !votes, but they were not formally added to the nomination per WP:MULTIAFD, and the !votes referred to "per nom", with minimal reference to the others brought up by participants. Feel free to nominate others in another AfD if needed.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Wildcats football series records

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

At the same time, I am also nominating the following three related pages because of their significantly similar content and notability issues:

Non-notable list subjects that fail WP:GNG and WP:LIST, for lack of significant coverage of the the list subjects as a group in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Moreover, these lists of statistics also violate the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NOTSTATS, to wit:

"Wikipedia articles should not be . . . [e]xcessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."

These articles were previously PROD'ed, but the the PROD templates were removed. A previous AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records, was closed yesterday with a solid consensus in favor of the elimination of a very similar list as a stand-alone article (8 "delete" !votes, 2 "keep" !votes, and 2 merge" !votes). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records, these types of lists have discussed at some length here in Nov. 2015 and here in Sept. 2015. The consensus, which I support, is that we should not have such "series results" lists. The real issues here are whether the lists satisfy WP:LISTN and whether, even if the subject is notable, we ought to exercise editorial judgment under WP:PAGEDECIDE to opt against a stand-alone list/article. In this case, I favor our exercise of editorial judgment to avoid such articles for two reasons. First, I have concerns about our ability to maintain such sprawling lists, as the data at issue is massive (particularly if there are such lists for dozens and dozens of college football programs) and changes with great frequency. Second, the same data sets are published off Wikipedia by organizations (e.g., here) that are better equipped to perform regular updates of the data. As for WP:NOTSTATS, it remains my view that a number of editors have incorrectly interpreted NOTSTATS and that deletionists will seek to exploit that misinterpretation. The purpose of NOTSTATS is to require context for stats and to avoid pure data dumps. If there is a statistical list that is notable and not indiscriminate, NOTSTATS suggests that any such listing should have contextual narrative text and citations. The introductory sentence of WP:NOTSTATS emphasizes precisely this: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." As User:Ejgreen77 noted in one of the prior discussions, if NOTSTATS was a valid basis for deleting statistical listings regardless of notability, it could be used to support deletion of highly notable statistical lists such as: List of college football coaches with 200 wins, List of NCAA football records, List of NCAA Division I FBS running backs with at least 5,000 rushing yards, etc. In sum, the real issue is not whether such lists are precluded under NOTSTATS, but one of reasonable editorial judgment under WP:LISTN and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Cbl62 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the same rationale supports deletion of Iowa Hawkeyes football series records, Michigan State Spartans football series records, Michigan Wolverines football series records, and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records. Cbl62 (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records passes the the general notability and WP:LISTN criteria mentioned above. There is significant coverage of their record in independent and reliable sources (I've added relevant notes in the article). I don't know if the same case can be made for the other series records you mention though, as they are now, those pages are not well sources. I must admit I don't like the idea of keeping one and deleting the others, but I didn't support the deletion of these kinds of pages in the first place. That being said I can see notability problems in the case of UMASS and the Charlotte 49ers Shatterdaymorn (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Alabama Crimson Tide football series records. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these pages are all simply direct copies of the source material and are a list of statistics. While those statistics could be a part of an article, they should not make up the complete article (even for a list). A list article should allow for commentary about the list and that commentary should not be original research (meaning "I the author of the Wikipedia page look at the list and observe the following cool things..."). As an alternative, a list article can serve as a navigational aid to articles but that's not what I see here either. It seems to be that these articles are simply copying directly from a web page (or pages) that already exist as a single source.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nederland 2013

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

Obviously minor feeder events for the main international event. Delete with all the other annual articles for each year linked at the bottom. Legacypac (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least partly falsified. The final is transmitted by RTL4 (a commercial channel) and not by Nederland 1 or NPO 1 (non-commercial channel) as it is known since 2013. Also, final was held in Hilversum, not Bunnik. The Banner talk 07:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and don't forget to TfD the navbox template afterwards. Except for 2015, all editions refer to a single source, which is WP:PRIMARY for that matter. While the contest itself may be notable, the separate annual editions are not. None of the editions seem to have something unique beyond the proseless contestant listcruft, possibly violating WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open Societal Innovation

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

This business concept does not have sufficient scholarship or ideological distinction to justify its existence. This looks a lot like original research. Curro2 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO. This term is a recent invention by a non-notable organization and is not widely used. From what I can tell it appears this article is an attempt to popularize it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and draft & userfy if needed until a better encyclopedia article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Lutzky

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

Seams like not notable person. Fails WP:NFOOTY, as he plays for the team in the non-professional league. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: utterly non-notable; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 02:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notablility, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:15, 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. It would certainly be nice if someone found uses in the article for all those sources (such as his having a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame). Deor (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Laboe

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

Delete: as vanity article; doesn't meet notability threshold. Quis separabit? 01:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 03:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at best given the sourcing. Delete - The current article simply seems to suggest a locally known DJ, nothing else especially for a better encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete - Contrary to the two previous opinions, subject of entry is known to a wide-spread audience that reaches across several generations of radio-listeners throughout California, Arizona, and Southern Nevada, due to his popular syndicated call-in radio program. The fact that he is currently 90 years-old (as of Decemeber 2015) and still broadcasting every weeknight is only one interesting fact that would be lost should this entry be erased. Art Laboe is part of the heritage of the western U.S.'s radio history. See http://artlaboe.com/Radio.html for sample of listener audience scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.148.50 (talk) 13:18, 28 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 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but NPOV/refimprove: He started indie label Original Sound, is/was nationally syndicated, and has a large number of significant book and news mentions as a pioneer of radio including this chapter, this story, and his own day in LA City and County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydronium Hydroxide (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 January 2016‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In addition to the sources cited above, a very quick search revealed these 3 pieces in Billboard that he was the subject of: here, here, and here. J04n(talk page) 18:59, 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 redirect to Bundesautobahn 44 with {{R with possibilities}}. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Kassel-Süd

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers AEnglish-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And as mentioned elsewhere, if it was British it would, as a named interchange, be extremely likely to be notable. Named interchanges in Germany are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and have to be judged vis-a-vis GNG on other merits. WP:CSB does not mean letting non-notable content into the encyclopedia just because it's "not from the English-speaking areas". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no language bias taking place here, why is it that in a dozen AfD's I've worked, not a single delete !vote has reported either reading the German references or looking for sources on Google. The fact that they don't talk about how they got the article's references translated from German indicates to me that as a group they've not looked at the references. Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for "letting non-notable content" into the encyclopedia, see WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Furthermore, these Kreuz's and Dreieck's are already covered in our encyclopedia. What do you mean by the words "letting non-notable content into the encyclopedia"? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails to assert notability in line with WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned above and elsewhere, Autobahn interchanges are invariably named and, therefore, have no special presumption of notability from their status. There is no apparent evidence that this interchange passes WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 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 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. In relation to this interchange in particular, it is an unusual one for global political reasons, in that it was designed and partially constructed to be a two part four way interchange, but its completion was prevented by the Cold War division of Germany; plans for the network were later changed and the interchange modified accordingly. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these Kreuz's and Dreieck's are topics proper in the encyclopedia as either redirects to one of the two related Autobahn articles, or as standalone articles, and this is primarily a decision of those maintaining the articles. This particular interchange has 2004 history of the name change along with the associated controversy, as well as there is 2014 material available from hna.de regarding route changes. Unscintillating (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the last two keep !votes offer no valid argument based on policy for those, just more trivial mentions and routine coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 January 2016‎

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

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

The result was no consensus. This AfD has been relisted twice, with no clear consensus emerging with regard to deleting, keeping, or redirecting. Further relisting does not seem likely to result in such a consensus. Deor (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Poss

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

Is being a German Wine Queen notable? I think not. (Beer Queen maybe ...) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The answer is clearly "yes". Wine is a major German export and the German Wine Queen is the national representative of the German wine industry. She is not some local beauty queen, but an expert on German wines and an ambassador for Germany in this important arm of their economy. The article is well referenced too. The nom has put forward no argument for deletion other than stating an opinion and making the questionable suggestion that a beer queen would be notable by comparison. Bermicourt (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage focuses on crowning and background, no evidence of this claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, winner of a longstanding and important product queen title that comes with large amounts of national media coverage. (The beer queens have been introduced recently, but are of much lower notability). Wine is of much greater cultural importance than beer in the wine-producing regions of Germany. —Kusma (t·c) 18:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article Updated. I have added more detail about Poss's role as Germany's national wine representative, fully referenced. No doubt there is more that could be added as the article is expanded, but it gives an indication of the role and it's international importance for Germany and the German wine industry. Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to German Wine Queen. I don't dispute the notability of the title but, for most of the recipients, there is nothing notable about them other than the title itself. A major exception, of course, is Julia Klöckner, whose article offers an instructive contrast with the instant article. In Klockner's article, her tenure as Wine Queen takes up only a single sentence. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:18, 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 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to German Wine Queen. Curro2 (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:N, WP:GNG by a wide margin. Quis separabit? 05:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Odd, don't you think, to consider the representative of the German Wine Industry as less notable than, say, a fourth tier English league football player? Bermicourt (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto the title article. 4th tier ball players are a different problem. Legacypac (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable crown. and per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BabbaQ. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough coverage to meet guidelines, though "German Wine Queen" does sound a dubious claim to fame!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 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 delete, noting that NinjaRobotPirate has ceded to the delete arguments and struck his keep recommendation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Reese (computer programmer)

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

No in-depth coverage in independent sources - üser:Altenmann >t 04:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I think maybe he's got enough coverage to warrant a keep: [34] from Star Tribune, [35] from Forbes (mostly an interview), [36] from Wired.com, [37] from Fortune. He also gets quoted as an expert in various Network World articles: [38], [39], [40], [41]. It's not exactly easy to find biographical information about him online, but he does show in reliable sources more often than I expected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lots of good people get cited and cite each other. We are talking about significant coverage and claims of notability. By this logic I can easily write article about myself. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The only thing to judge this subject on is as an author, because there are no sources for him as anything else. Then it becomes even more difficult because the authors of technical books are... well, they are technical writers. They aren't inventors or creators, and it's hard to see them as culturally significant. Some technical writers produce the massive manuals that accompany heavy equipment, some produce elegant explanations of IT. I find it a stretch to consider this notability as defined in WP:CREATIVE and yet being able to produce those O'Reilly books is a particular skill. They don't get reviewed anywhere but tech sources, and even then I think that most people take for granted that the O'Reilly book on a topic will be about the best you can get. I looked up some of my favorite IT/programming writers and they aren't in here, which may be as it should be. LaMona (talk) 22:52, 27 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 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of the kind of sources needed to write a biography. The sources found by NinjaRobotPirate might be appropriate sources for the things Reese is interviewed about, but not for an article about him. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alright, it's been this long and nobody agrees with me. I'll strike through my vote due to the arguments made against the sources I found. Maybe I was too generous. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:03, 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. The article having NPOV and BLP issues is not an argument for deletion. As it is proved in the article, the previous AfD, and here that this person is just not known because of one single event. Notability is clearly established and if there are issues with the article, they can always be fixed. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Song Yoo-geun

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

A boy/student who is only known for plagiarizing a (single) paper he co-wrote. Not known for anything else. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize this article was discussed before, but I still think it should be either deleted or redirected to a more appropriate article, there is no independent notability for a stand-alone biographical article on a student in this case. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Speedy Keep -- I know it was an honest mistake in not noticing the prior AfD, but I'd suggest that the nominator withdraw; last Keep conclusion was less than a month ago, and consensus is very unlikely to have changed in that time. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NPOV. I think the page does have possible notability however there are bigger problems with it. Basically the page seems to be a huge recount of this persons scandal rather than being a page about the individual. For instance the sections are titled "life before october 2015" and "Controversy" which shows clear focus on a negative issue for no reason since the person has other claims to fame. They were the youngest person in South Korea to be accepted into a university and were considered a prodigy, which isn't mentioned at all in the articles opening. Several of the references though are specifically about that and not the scandal but still the plagiarism seems to be the overall focus of the page. Therefore I find the article to be in violation of WP:BLP guidelines. Peachywink (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons that this article was closed as keep less than a month ago. It is completely untrue that this individual is "only known for plagiarizing a (single) paper he co-wrote". In Korea, this individual has seen significant media coverage for many years. Sources that indicate notability are abundant (but not in English). The plagiarism issue is just the latest reason he has received media attention. If editors see problems with the article in terms of NPOV and BLP, that is a reason to improve the article's content (or maybe trim bad content) rather than delete the article. 웃웃 (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is supposed to have changed during the short laps of time from the former discussion? Nevertheless, for the benefit of User:Tadeusz Nowak, and other people that could have difficulties in finding the previous discussion, let us recall that this article is about "something has turned wrong in a long term process 2005-2015". In other words, serially breaching the academic rules in order to "grow the future Korean Nobel Prize in Physic" (and serially depicting doubts as jealousy) has produced unforeseen results. The formal retractation of an article, published by the American Astronomical Society, motivated by an exceptionally large overlap with a paper published in 2002 was the emerging part of a long term process, and was absolutely not a random copyvio by a random student. It was the total breakdown of what should have been the PhD thesis of a star student (and of the large amount of money and staff involved in the process). This has generated a lot of articles published in Reliable Sources. For the people that cannot read Korean, it exists however many articles written in English, see The Korea Herald (www.koreaherald.com), Korean Joongang Daily (koreajoongangdaily.joins.com, 3 articles), Korea Times (www.koreatimes.co.kr, among them an Editorial comment), Yonhap News Agency (english.yonhapnews.co.kr), The Donga Ilbo (english.donga.com). Therefore, the long term notability is obvious. What to say about this long term process, from 2005 to 2015, is a content discussion, not to be discussed here. Pldx1 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better if the article wasn't named after the individual but rather was about the incident since that seems to already be what the article is about. Even pages for murderers have early life sections not "life before the crime" sections. Currently I think there is a negative point of view in the overall writing of this article but if it wasn't a BLP page than that would change things. Peachywink (talk) 19:27, 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 speedy merge to Colour revolution#List of colour revolutions. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Revolution

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

This article is about a politically biased and historically unsupported name for the 2003-2005 regime change in Iraq, which already has non-biased articles such as Iraq War, and Iraqi parliamentary election, December 2005. "Purple Revolution" is not an accurate term, nor more objectively is it a popular term. It is used by a small subset of people to color (no pun intended) the discussion of the related events. Furthermore, the article lacks much content or substantiation. If any mention of the "Purple Revolution" is necessary, it could be merely a small part of the Color Revolution and/or Election ink articles. NobleHam (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my searches turned up almost no references to this, instead almost all discussing Nigel Farage's book of the same name. This suggests that the term is a WP:NEO that never attracted much attention beyond some blogs and internet commenters. I don't think this meets the WP:GNG, unless someone can bring a reliable source that discusses this in depth, but I wasn't able to find one. Perhaps it merits a mention in the Iraq War page but I don't think a merge is necessary since there's a lot of original research on here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iraqi parliamentary election, January 2005. This is a term that has seen wide use, e.g. in these books:[42],[43],[44] in addition to the one mentioned above that uses the term in its title. I'm not sure if there's enough deep coverage for a standalone article per WP:NEO, but it is worth a mention in that article. The current text is unproblematic and should be easy to merge. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - there may not be enough to write an article, but the phrase seems to be clearly notable - with references in The Telegraph apparently used in a speech by GW Bush whilst President, referenced in books and so on. JMWt (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to election article. Since the term has been used, we ought to retain the title in WP, but it does not need a full article of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Colour revolution#List of colour revolutions, where it already has an entry. This seems to get quite a few continuing mentions, but in conjunction with other colour revolutions, to support or deny the validity of the general concepts and/or the genuineness of the various revolutions. It rarely or never seems to get used when discussing this Iraqi election in an Iraqi context. PWilkinson (talk) 23:14, 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. The arguments for this article's retention simply do not hold up to snuff. Therefore the article is found to not meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Duisburg

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

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

For the record, the deprod statement on the talk page was, "==Removal of Prod== *Oppose deletion of this and all similar articles: see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)" Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 19:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is no such consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Chemnitz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Also, I have expanded the subject article since this nomination was created. Bahnfrend (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - you pick a no-consensus due to procedure, not guidelines; another with a split; and a third where your position is in the minority. You also fail to bring up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Leverkusen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Magdeburg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Stuhr, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Alzey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Neunkirchen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide (2nd nomination) - which is the re-do of the original one you bring up. So, 6 deleted, 1 heading for deletion, 1 split decision (at this point). And you don't see an "emerging consensus"? Hmmmm.... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Once again, you misrepresent the nature of the "no consensus". In October 2015, several editors pointed out to you and others that at least some of the then block nomination articles clearly met GNG, and that you should not nominate them all in a block, nor nominate any of them separately without doing any research on them. You waited a couple of months, and then, without notifying all (and probably without notifying any) of the editors who had opposed you, made another block nomination (made up partially of PROD nominations, all of which were clearly inappropriate) without doing any research. The fact that the block nomination was made on separate pages does not mean that it was not a block nomination. When it was then pointed out to you that you have followed the wrong procedures and that there is still no consensus, you rely upon some of the outcomes of that procedurally inappropriate block nomination to support your contention that there is an "emerging consensus". I repeat: there is no consensus. Your further contention that mine is a minority view is irrelevant - even if only one editor is able to point out either GNG or procedural inappropriateness, a nomination should fail. I say that it is both highly inappropriate and disruptive for you to nominate simultaneously so many similar articles for deletion when you have already been told not to do so, particularly when you have not done the research you have also been told to do before nominating them. How do you expect other editors to have the time to find the material for GNG when you are nominating them all of them all at once? Bahnfrend (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, who are you again to be telling other editors what to do and what not to do? Sorry. Your argument doesn't really hold water. And might I suggest at this point you WP:DROPTHESTICK, which several other editors have asked you to do. You really need to read more carefully, and then formulate your arguments more fully. First, I was not involved in the initial block AfD (as you call it) at all. Didn't nominate the non-notable interchanges, didn't join the discussion. Stumbled on the non-notable interchanges all by my lonesome. Second, it was not my contention that there was "emerging consensus", that was another editor's viewpoint. When you disregard that, you get called to the woodshed, showing the overwhelming consensus in 6 other AfD discussions on this same topic. So when you get so many of the facts incorrect, its difficult to listen to anything else you have to say. You shouting from the rooftops that you are right does not make you so. Your lack of civility, and personal attacks are simply becoming more frantic and disconcerting. Again, please drop the stick. And, yes, I am still awaiting for your apology. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those references that you added in the "History" section are trivial passing mentions that devote no significant coverage whatsoever to this interchange. Longest beer table? Really? The English metaphor is "thin soup" and I bet German has something similar. I have participated in thousands of AfD debates and group (or block) nominations are common. There is nothing at all unusual or improper about onel5969's behavior. Please drop your combative attitude, Bahnfrend. It is unseemly and hurts your cause rather than helping it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: This group nomination concerns a group of articles about subject matter located outside the Anglosphere and considered by more than one other Wikipedia to be notable. I have found other material about this interchange and other interchanges within that group. However, as I do not have unlimited time to edit wikipedia, I do not have enough time to research GNG and add content to all of the articles that have been nominated for deletion, and no editor could reasonably be expected to do so within the applicable time limits. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - and those tidbits you've added to several of the articles add nothing towards the notability of any of those articles. Nice effort, though. Doesn't change the fact that none of them pass WP:GNG. Can't help it if other wikis have lower standards than the English Wikipedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response: You're the nominator, so you're not a disinterested assessor of whether they pass GNG or not. One editor has already accepted that my edits to Kreuz Kaiserberg indicate notability, which puts paid to your view that they all fail. As I don't claim to have finished expanding any of the articles, not even that one, it matters little what you think about what I've done so far. I repeat: I do not have enough time to research GNG and add content to all of the articles that have been nominated for deletion, and no editor could reasonably be expected to do so within the applicable time limits. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - actually, that editor didn't say that. They did say they felt that particular interchange was notable, but made no mention of your recent edits. They've also commented on several other of the interchanges you've engaged on as to how they are not notable. And that's one of about 12 editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further response to Cullen328: My further research today has revealed, amongst other things, that the interchange includes a sculpture described in the sources as a symbol of Duisburg. I have expanded the article further to include the further information, which I guess thickens the soup. Bahnfrend (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This particular case is a named interchange with daily traffic of 160,000, known for its association with the division of Germany during the cold war. This appears to be a perfectly good article: a unique and interesting topic, the topic fits well in our missing coverage, and it is cited to be verifiable. Unscintillating (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And please also watch the discussion on WikiProjects Highways page, --Chandler321 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a rationale for keeping this particular interchange would be nice. Your comments on the highway page are nice, but generic, and do not speak to the concept of the notability of individual interchanges. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced. Fulfills WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above !vote is not visible. Since it cites "WP:IAR", it is the only !votes on this page to cite a policy by using "WP:". Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing editor - none of the keep !votes address the lack of notability. Even those !votes which say it does pass WP:GNG don't say how it does, and the current sourcing is about the autobahns, in which this interchange is mentioned. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 05:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again you talk about wp:notability, when deletion of a topic requires that the topic be BOTH non-notable and insignificant. I've asked you before words to the effect, "Given our policy to fix problems not delete them, why are you trying to get this topic deleted, when if non-notability is your concern, you could be !voting to redirect or merge to one of the two autobahn articles?". For our encyclopedia, this issue is more important than non-notability. Unscintillating (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you mention the blur between that which is the autobahn, and that which is the autobahnkreuz. This has come up before in our discussion about WP:GEOROAD, which indicates that we want coverage of the autobahn "network". The long numbered roads and the autobahnkreuzes are all part of the same object. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what's interesting is your continued refusal to address the lack of notability, and your refusal to see the overriding consensus developing in these discussions. The argument you use above has been discounted in several other AfD discussions. In almost 50 discussions which have been closed, only 2 have reached the conclusion to "keep" (one was my own withdrawal of the nomination). Regardless, take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could get more into a discussion with you about wp:notability, but you don't seem to me to reflect acceptance of the difference between GNG, WP:GEOROAD, and the 2016 version of WP:N. To me, your GNG-centric viewpoint became less substantive when I learned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Kassel-Süd that you dismiss the 2014 material at hna.de as "trivial mentions and routine coverage", and I learned at the AfD for Dreieck Walsrode that you've disregarded a non-prose GNG source (a map) as "totally trivial". I think that any pretense that a topic with daily traffic of 160,000 is unknown to the world at large over a period of time, is argumentative.
To respond to the argumentum ad populum, your GNG-focus is possibly a mask for the question of if there is sufficient GNG material to write an article, which has not been a requirement since 2007 in WP:N. The fine points that decide whether a WP:V WP:RS government source is independent for GNG is not an issue when finding material for writing an article that is mostly technical wikiGnome work, not opinion. Similarly, maps have not been disputed as WP:V WP:RS for writing articles.
If you want more WP:V WP:RS sources to write an article, what have you done to locate them? These kreuz and dreieck topics typically have four or five common search names, "Kreuz Duisburg", "Autobahnkreuz Duisburg", "AK Duisburg", "Duisburg Kreuz", and possibly "Duisburg Interchange". If you've been checking all of these search terms, it might be helpful to the other editors to add the "Find sources" templates for each.
But I'm also willing to meet you on your terms and discuss the case as if this topic is non-notable, because I'm focused on building an encyclopedia and retaining our content contributors, and I don't have a strong opinion about whether this topic should be standalone or covered in one of the two autobahn articles. The elephant in the room is that non-notability is not what matters most here for the encyclopedia. As far as I know, no case has ever been attempted to show that this topic is both non-notable and insignificant. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment - Your recalcitrance and refusal to recognize the, what by now is, overwhelming consensus regarding this issue, makes further discourse unproductive. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Recalcitrance" is a form of an appeal to authority based on an argumentum ad populum. An English Wikipedia policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Which should editors follow? However, because of your sincerity, I think that you continue to advance the discussion. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing special here. It's an interchange. Two highways come together and there's ramps that let you get from one to the other. Just like every other highway interchange in the world. See WP:RAWDATA. Being able to find WP:RS is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The essay "Common outcomes" says, "** Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones (e.g. the Springfield Interchange near Washington, D.C.)." Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I wrote on a previous AFD on one of these generic interchange articles, we don't automatically presume that generic interchanges are notable, and there's nothing particular about this one that would cause it to stand out above the 1000s of others. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 03:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

MSQL-JDBC

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

nn software - üser:Altenmann >t 04:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 05:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 09:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no reason to keep this Information as the driver has been replaced by more advanced and up to date drivers. The information on this page is also of questionable notability as the only thing that seems even remotely noteworthy is it was the first JDBC Driver which has no real source to prove the statement. All this combined with the lack of Information leads me to believe there is no point in keeping this. Andrdema (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The one ref is to a book by the author of the software, and in any case is an incidental mention. A search turned up forum posts and incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R&R Group

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

No evidence of notability in the article or on the web. Previously PRODded and declined without a reason. The creator said in an edit summary that he or she was "providing information on my Company", so there is an apparent conflict of interest there as well. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article doesn't even have references and it is written like an advertisement. A search doesn't churn out any coverage by realiable sources either. The listing of the non-notable subsidiaries compounds the reasons as to why this should be deleted if not speedy. Kansiime (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs in the article. Author should provide some refs and evidence of notability. I read their home website and it is hard to glean any info about their notability from it. Szzuk (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is nearly even speedy material with nothing else to suggest compromise improvement. Notifying tagger Qwertyus. 23:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 January 2016‎[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iván Cabrera Trigo

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

Effectively unsourced, as the only sourced is a dead link. Fails WP:GNG. WP:ONEEVENT, the pageant being without own article The Banner talk 05:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Good nom. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG ,WP:ONEVENT and WP:NMODEL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:00, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Kaljanac

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

No reliable sources conform WP:RS. Participant in a pageant without own article. Looks like WP:ONEEVENT The Banner talk 04:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is, at best, WP:BLP1E, and the event itself may not be significant enough. sst✈ 01:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the only other source I have about the article's subject. This blog post briefly mentions him, though I don't think there's enough coverage to determine notability. FallingGravity (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NMODEL by a long shot. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, not yet a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 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 keep. Never close on one !vote but Google brings up tons of News articles and books so like below I believe she's notable enough for an article. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Gascoigne

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

Delete: non-notable individual. Possible redirect to Sheryl Gascoigne or Paul Gascoigne. Quis separabit? 04:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Redirection is inappropriate. She has achieved minor celebrity in her own right, having appeared on multiple "celebrity" tv shows, at least two for an extended period of time, and receiving a fair few trivial-but-non-trivial tabloid news stories even in the last year. With the coverage she has, WP:ENT point 2 applies, even if point 1 is marginal. The Star, the Mirror, and the Mail might not generally be considered the most WP:RELIABLE of sources, but when it comes to "celebrities"... ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 05:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Key West Method

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

None of the references check out, absolutely no google hits beyond this page itself. All three of the books are publicly available, yet nothing remotely like this appears on the pages in question. Likely a total fabrication. HCA (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to relying on Nom's check on the references in the article, I tried searching a number of different way, including "Key west Method" + hunting. found nothing. Then there is the text, if you swam up on a sea turtle from behind and strangled it to death as suggested here, unless you were swimming right beside a seafood market, you would lose a lot of money. Turtles, like lobsters and oysters, were sold for the table live. Kill one using the "Key West Method," and You could sell the valuable turtle shell, but the meat would have been rendered worthless. Turtle meat was in high demand, and the turtle fishery was about the market for both meat and shell. See: Thompson Fish House, Turtle Cannery and Kraals. As to strangling an alligator with your bare hands, or "sneaking up" on a wild pig and hugging it to death.... I can only suppose that this hoax article is someone's idea of a joke.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of this currently suggests even a minimally better acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavia and the World

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

I had actually planned on writing an article about this subject, but I can't find any reliable third party sources at all on it, so it doesn't meet the GNG. There are two mentions of the webcomic in blog posts profiling a different work by the same artist ([45], [46]), but that's the closest that I can get to finding sources. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Much as this is my favourite webcomic site, I have to admit my fairly thorough (and at the time quite indignant) search reveals that this is definitely not notable. The only saving grace I can find is that it seems to be quite well-visited, although I fail to see how that could be notability. Delete as per the nominator, great site but not notable. RailwayScientist (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the sources I've managed to find, it would be easier to write an article on Humon based on his gender roles cartoons than it would be to write an article on Scandinavia and the World. There's too little for either, though. Delete. ~Mable (chat) 15:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramananda Prasad

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

No real claim of notability beyond translating a much-translating book and founding a society with no real notability claims. Been marked for notability for 7 years. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG. Someone with a similar name, Ramananda Prasad Singh, may be notable, but I think it's a different person. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What would be needed here is evidence that his translation of the Bhagavad Gita is the standard one, or particular well thought of and widely read; alternatively, that he's notable as a civil engineer. Neither information seems available. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's not yet a better notable article here. Notifying 1st AfDer and nominator Boleyn. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite looking extensively, I couldn't verify his notability, and neither has anyone else in the 8 years that this has been tagged for notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhra Mittal

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

No indication of significance. Non-notable interior designer. Curro2 (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned and also as tagger Musa Raza said, there's simply still not enough solid coverage for a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, per several source searches. There's this article, but is just quotes the subject discussing a topic; it's not about her. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Asprilla

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON Joeykai (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite assertion that he is a QB for the Patriots, he has not appeared in an NFL game and is not listed on the Patriots' roster (see here) and therefore does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. His collegiate biography (here) does not reference any major awards or records, and I find no coverage in the national news media, so that he does not pass WP:NCOLLATH either. Finally, my searches did not turn up significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources of the type required under WP:GNG, though I'm willing to reconsider if others can bring forward such coverage. Finally, coverage such as this and this about his high school career are discounted pursuant to WP:NHSPHSATH. Cbl62 (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the sources provided the subject has not achieved notability. It's possible that WP:GNG could have been achieved through his college career or other means, but my review of online sources only shows passing mentions. If it were presented, I would reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college football player and wannabe pro. The subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards) or pro football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season NFL game). Based on my review of 200+ Google hits, the subject does not satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. I did find a single article from The Boston Globe in which Asprilla was the principal subject [47], but that by itself is insufficient to get him over the GNG hump. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on The Boston Globe article. A couple more like that from other media outlets, and I'd reconsider my vote, but for now, I agree with Dirtlawyer that the solo article from the Globe doesn't get him over the GNG hump. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Frankenthal

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as per all of my other comments in the past AfDs. Just having a name imparts no presumption of notability when every German interchange has a name. Imzadi 1979 → 02:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Cloverleaf interchange with no claim of notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchange 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. This particular interchange is also between two Autobahns that connect Germany with a total of three other countries, and therefore should not be presumed to be lacking in notability simply because of its configuration. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bundesautobahn 6 with template:R with possibilities We have a complete structure of German autobahns in the encyclopedia. We even have separate templates for Dreieck and Kreuz. The German Dreieck's and Kreuz's that are named always connect two Autobahns. This means that any Dreieck or Kreuz is already known to be covered in two other topics already in existence on Wikipedia. This is sufficient to know that there is no policy basis to delete the "topic", also known on Wikipedia as the "subject". I would also argue that these topics satisfy our wp:notability guidelines, but analyzing this point between keep and merge becomes academic, given that there is no policy basis for a deletion discussion. Any decision to redirect or merge can be handled under WP:Editing policy, which might consider more than wp:notability in the decision. Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how a redirect can be made to two different autobahn articles. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using an arbtrary rule of picking the lower-numbered Autobahn to propose as the target of the redirect. There may be other ways to choose. Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange that fails GNG. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete yet another interchange that fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Hannover-Ost

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 09:54, 31 December 2015 (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. This particular interchange links two of Germany's most important Autobahns, one of them between Denmark and Austria (also Germany's longest Autobahn) and the other between Berlin and the Ruhr (ie between Germany's two biggest population centres). Bahnfrend (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is a faint claim to notability but not enough, as I see it, to justify an article on a pretty ordinary cloverleaf. Contrary to assertions there is no British precedent upon which to rely. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is not based on claims of any kind. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 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. Any decision to redirect or merge can be handled under WP:Editing policy, which might consider more than wp:notability in the decision. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 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} 03:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative to the "stand-alone article" is merger, so given that you are on record as refusing to consider merger, your objection is academic. Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC) - My apologies, Unscintillating - I corrected the format of your wikilink - hope you don't take offense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete? sst✈ 02:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ 02:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a map, and this is just a road interchange. It's not a population centre, it's a cloverleaf. What can be written about it other than the obvious Hwy A meets Hwy B? Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange that fails GNG. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily per The Bushranger, as we don't automatically presume that generic interchanges are notable, and there's nothing particular about this one that would cause it to stand out above the 1000s of others. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 22:01, 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 delete via criterion G7: author requested deletion. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Squad

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

I'm not sure if this is a hoax or just not notable, but I can't find anything about this on the web. Adam9007 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, ~~and, well, yeah. It's nothing.~~ - Article was updated. Much, much much better, but still concerned about notability. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article creator has now blanked and requested deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:18, 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. Michig (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victory-Land Theatre School

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

Does not appear to be notable. A Google search turned up no reliable, independent sources that talked about the school in depth. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like the proposer, I can find nothing to indicate notability. All I can find are directory listings and sources connected to the organisation. Seems to be a run-of-the-mill theatre/drama school with nothing to distinguish it from numerous others. Neiltonks (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as none of this suggests better for a seemingly local acting school. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 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 Redirect to Excession. Michig (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genar-Hofoen

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

Other articles devoted to single characters from the Culture series have been merged with the pages devoted to their novel (specifically, those for Bora Horza Gorbuchul and Perosteck Balveda have been merged to Consider Phlebas), but they had significantly more content. As this page stands, I don't think that it could contribute more than a couple lines to that article. It's far too short, not referenced, and written entirely in-universe. Smith(talk) 20:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merge? Or not even worth doing so? --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were to be merged, I reckon the best way to so would be to have a characters section in Excession; doing so would require a lot more than just this one character. Smith(talk) 21:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was ready to vote to delete, but it looks like there's some coverage in Google Books: [48] and [49]. I don't know if this is enough to write an article, or if this article should be merged and sources I found cited in the main article on the book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but both of those cases seem to be plot summaries of the novel, and include the character's name in that regard without adding substantive analysis or, indeed, any other information that could realistically be added to the article. Smith(talk) 11:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthefoxes and NinjaRobotPirate: Any thoughts on a vote?

Redirect to Excession. No independent notability, not enough content for a merge. Kolbasz (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps and redirect if needed as this may be applicable for the book, but it seems questionably notable and improvable as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 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 Michig (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singpatong Sitnumnoi

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

Subject fails general notability guidelines due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were unsuccessful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should evidence of such coverage come forward during this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. The camp can't inherit notability from any of its fighters--it needs coverage specifically about it. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The camp is covered in this column article from the 18 March 2015 issue of Kom Chad Luek, a nationally circulated newspaper. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant independent coverage. My computer couldn't translate the article mentioned by Paul012, but even if that article is a good source the article needs more than one.Mdtemp (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Westmoreland

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

Totally unsourced BLPs should not exist. Jtrainor (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete No sources, so no indication of notability, let alone the questioned accuracy of all the rest of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comments The text at the article feels copyvio, but googling a sample of text leads me only to Wikipedia-ripoff sites. Kathy Westmoreland's website is http://www.kathywestmoreland.us/ , but skimming through the Wayback machine, I don't see copyvio text there. Argyriou (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently attempts to inherit notability from Elvis. Even the additions by the (alleged) article subject don't add anything that suggests independent notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a couple of references - these were first-page-of-Google finds and would have been seen by the nominator if he'd carried out a check per WP:BEFORE. Curious to know why they didn't add them instead of nominating. Anyhoo. I'm not totally convinced about Westmoreland's notability, but she might well hit the mark if there's offline sources from the 70's. Seven years as backing singer to a massive icon must've generated some coverage, so I'm not !voting either way just yet. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. It doesn't really matter if she was Elvis' backing singer, the only question is what independent attention has been paid to her. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your statement of the obvious, if you read what I say you'll see that I already understand that perfectly clearly. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I find lots of mentions. There's a 3-page chapter on her in this book: Williamson, Joel, and Donald L. Shaw. Elvis Presley: A Southern Life. , 2015 G-books. She worked with Steve Martin and there's a bit about her in this book about him: G-books. This author of this book interviewed her and her name appears over a dozen times: The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley By Alanna Nash. It's all still very much in the shadow of Elvis, but it is verifiable. Note that her own book, which does get quoted and cited some, and was probably ghost-written, only appears in less than 2 dozen WorldCat libraries. If this is deleted, I won't be surprised. LaMona (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy for now as this is not seemingly enough to satisfy the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable singer - Userfying's useless as it was created by an IP in 2005, Delete is the only sensible option here.... –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 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.